Injuries headed into BB

[theaardvark]

Can you fill me in on who the Nationaized American was last game?  Can't seem to find it.  Surely we used one.....Who wouldn't.  Right?

LOL.  You so funny.

If you don't use a nationalized American, you can earn an extra draft pick, which we have every year.

2024 it was Kyle Sampson DL, who we traded to Hamilton for Peterson.

2025 it was a guy name Elgersma.

We don't tend to have an issue with staring Nats, so why bother with it?  Who doesn't like free draft picks?

[Blue In BC]

Why haven't we heard about any injury status from today?

[Waffler]

Why haven't we heard about any injury status from today?

No practice today? Maybe hear something on the coaches show but I wouldn't count on it.

[Strevy]

LOL.  You so funny.

If you don't use a nationalized American, you can earn an extra draft pick, which we have every year.

2024 it was Kyle Sampson DL, who we traded to Hamilton for Peterson.

2025 it was a guy name Elgersma.

We don't tend to have an issue with staring Nats, so why bother with it?  Who doesn't like free draft picks?

So losing important football games for extra picks on a GC hosting year?  No team could be that bad at roster management, can they? That doesn't seem very smart now does it?  Going all in would be the smart move one would think.

How many snaps did Elgersma and Petersen take in the LDC? Can't seem to find it?  Just need a little more convincing of the impact they made on Sunday, it was such an important game, surely they were used well!

[dd]

I don't know what the deal is with Adam's, he has been the only one who can get a decent push at DT yet he's demoted to the PR while JT gets reps?? I know we have ratio issues , so instead of having a NAT be our safety and suck we ll put a NAT as our DT and he will suck but it won't lead to any explosion plays or TDs,but our run defense will just suck.i get it now

[Blueforlife]

So losing important football games for extra picks on a GC hosting year?  No team could be that bad at roster management, can they? That doesn't seem very smart now does it?  Going all in would be the smart move one would think.

How many snaps did Elgersma and Petersen take in the LDC? Can't seem to find it?  Just need a little more convincing of the impact they made on Sunday, it was such an important game, surely they were used well!

Another one that I and few others will agree with imo

Those picks will pay off
Patience will pay off
Roster management has been fine and will continue to be solid as long as this group stays together
Canadian depth is key to winning cups
Forest through the trees?

[Strevy]

Another one that I and few others will agree with imo

Those picks will pay off
Patience will pay off
Roster management has been fine and will continue to be solid as long as this group stays together
Canadian depth is key to winning cups
Forest through the trees?

In a GC hosting year?  Worried about a single player for  2029 lol.  Terrible approach, absolute horrid roster management if that is the case. 

Take the year off and forget the pick.  Go all in to win.  They can have another 9 picks before the next home GC.  Dumb move if that is the reason.

Pretty sure most people would want to host the WF followed by being in the Big Game. 

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I do think we're a bit stubborn and possibly a little bit arrogant to not use the roster rules for greater flexibility. It makes total sense to do so especially on defense where there is a lot of packages and rotations (and we don't have a lot of national depth). Even just designating an American and Canadian on that side of the ball (without actually making the substitution) is a good idea in case they go down and we want to get 25 snaps out of someone.

Another use case would be Logan and Oliveira. Then Logan could come in for Oliveira with and we could keep in all our starting American receivers too.

Whatever you want to say about it we're 6-5 this year and we should probably get with the times. Keep up or die.

[Pete]

I don't know what the deal is with Adam's, he has been the only one who can get a decent push at DT yet he's demoted to the PR while JT gets reps?? I know we have ratio issues , so instead of having a NAT be our safety and suck we ll put a NAT as our DT and he will suck but it won't lead to any explosion plays or TDs, but our run defense will just suck.i get it now

I have no problem with Allen at safety, when you saw how we were getting burnt with kelly there its been a vast improvement not just in coverage but in making recievers pay for going into the middle.
Our ratio issues are as weve discussed have an import that specialized in kickoff coverage rather than an additional lineman. On labor day game we finished with only 5 dl

[dd]

I have no problem with Allen at safety, when you saw how we were getting burnt with kelly there its been a vast improvement not just in coverage but in making recievers pay for going into the middle.
Our ratio issues are as weve discussed have an import that specialized in kickoff coverage rather than an additional lineman. On labor day game we finished with only 5 dl

I get why Allen's at safey--because NAT Kelly sucked!! So rather than have your safety suck and cost you big time, we've chosen to take Adams out and replace with Lawson/Thomas, a downgrade in talent, but necessary due to ratio.

[Pigskin]

Is it time for the Bombers to trade for a legitimate Canadian safety, and or a DL.

[Pigskin]

Well, it sounds like DS83 is okay after all. That's good news. 

[TecnoGenius]

Is it time for the Bombers to trade for a legitimate Canadian safety, and or a DL.

Parker will likely slot back in FS.  Or Allen really steps up (or he's off to the PR until '26).  Not many legit NAT FSs, especially ones that would be up for trade.  We can only dream about a Dequoy...

Besides, with our setup, FS doesn't have to be NAT.  So widen the search to include IMPs.  However, our FS often is the "QB of the DBs", so maybe knows-the-system Parker is still the best option.

[TecnoGenius]

I do think we're a bit stubborn and possibly a little bit arrogant to not use the roster rules for greater flexibility. It makes total sense to do so especially on defense where there is a lot of packages and rotations (and we don't have a lot of national depth).

Totally agree.  However, there are 2-3 other teams that don't often (or ever) use the DNA/DNS cheat codes either, at least on 1 side of the ball.

Well... assuming your IMP depth is better than your NATs!  In our case there really is no "the IMPs always better" situation.  That said, if we got some mega-stout IMP DTs, THEN it would really pay to DNA one and "start" Fatboi then give 25 to the monster IMP.

Even just designating an American and Canadian on that side of the ball (without actually making the substitution) is a good idea in case they go down and we want to get 25 snaps out of someone.

I'm pretty sure we ARE designating the DNA/DNS.  The rules as written say you MUST designate on both sides of the ball.  As Junkie has told us, there is the chart us plebes see, and then the chart/roster/whatever as provided to the CFL.  Which neither CFL nor WFC publishes because it's SUPER CEREAL TRADE SECRETS WORTH MORE THAN THE COCA COLA FORMULA and we aren't worthy to lick their boots to be privy to who the DIs and DNA is that week.  Now everyone shut up and go enjoy your plain depth chart without all the extra ()'s and []'s.

[TecnoGenius]

If you don't use a nationalized American, you can earn an extra draft pick, which we have every year.

Don't get confused you guys.  NA (Nationalized American) and DNA (Designated NA) are 2 separate things.

Every team by rule starts that 8th NA (NA or 8th NAT).  Every team designates this.  Many/most don't put it on their chart.  No one cares because every single team has a slew of vets IMPs that qualify so it's really just a no-op.

DNA/DNS is the 25-snap thing for which we get the extra draft pick.  Yes, WFC never uses DNA (though they probably specify on the CFL-eyes-only chart).