Based on our current roster who is that going to be? Keeping in mind this means a player not expected to be a primary starter.
The closest I can guess would be Grant who could come in a few times on offence to replace a Canadian of some pass downs?
????????
Quote from: Blue In BC on February 27, 2023, 05:43:32 PM
Based on our current roster who is that going to be? Keeping in mind this means a player not expected to be a primary starter.
The closest I can guess would be Grant who could come in a few times on offence to replace a Canadian of some pass downs?
????????
Also, this year you can have one each of offense and defense. Next year you can have 2 on one side and 1 on the other.
Based on the current make-up: Janarian Grant could spend half the game at WR as long as a Canadian comes off somewhere (like for like could be Wolitarsky/Demski). You could also start Grant in the backfield and he could play in place of Oliveira. If we were going from a jumbo look we could potentially sub the 6th OL and sneak Grant on for something tricky like a two back look or whatever. On Defense it's a bit trickier. I think ideally you'd want to use it on the defensive line but I don't see anyone on the current roster that would qualify (Jefferson/Jeffcoat are going to play more than 49%). We could use it on Alexander and make safety a "Canadian position". Alexander could play half the game in that case as a safety and sub for both American HBs if we wanted him on the field more. It's a good way of opening up the possibility of having 4 Americans at WR if we wanted (since the defense would now be carrying 2 national spots [in reality 1.5].
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on February 27, 2023, 07:03:43 PM
Also, this year you can have one each of offense and defense. Next year you can have 2 on one side and 1 on the other.
Based on the current make-up: Janarian Grant could spend half the game at WR as long as a Canadian comes off somewhere (like for like could be Wolitarsky/Demski). You could also start Grant in the backfield and he could play in place of Oliveira. If we were going from a jumbo look we could potentially sub the 6th OL and sneak Grant on for something tricky like a two back look or whatever. On Defense it's a bit trickier. I think ideally you'd want to use it on the defensive line but I don't see anyone on the current roster that would qualify (Jefferson/Jeffcoat are going to play more than 49%). We could use it on Alexander and make safety a "Canadian position". Alexander could play half the game in that case as a safety and sub for both American HBs if we wanted him on the field more. It's a good way of opening up the possibility of having 4 Americans at WR if we wanted (since the defense would now be carrying 2 national spots [in reality 1.5].
The problem is that I don't see Grant on offence very often in any situation except injury replacement. The same applies for Alexander. He's too good to not be taking most snaps on defence at safety. While he could be used to sub in for import DB's, what would the point be? You'd be making a change at safety and DHB in those situations.
I expected and have said I think this Nationalized Import ends up as a DI. The problem is that we didn't add one in free agency. Lemon as an example could have qualified and immediately strengthened our depth at DE.
SMS may have been an issue but you need that veteran American that would effectively see and fill reps in rotation. Lacey might be another candidate but same SMS issue. Darvin Adams counting as a Canadian could be a similar choice. It all comes down to right price.
So will watch as we get closer to TC to see if we made some sort of adjustment.
Quote from: Blue In BC on February 27, 2023, 07:27:19 PM
The problem is that I don't see Grant on offence very often in any situation except injury replacement. The same applies for Alexander. He's too good to not be taking most snaps on defence at safety. While he could be used to sub in for import DB's, what would the point be? You'd be making a change at safety and DHB in those situations.
I expected and have said I think this Nationalized Import ends up as a DI. The problem is that we didn't add one in free agency. Lemon as an example could have qualified and immediately strengthened our depth at DE.
SMS may have been an issue but you need that veteran American that would effectively see and fill reps in rotation. Lacey might be another candidate but same SMS issue. Darvin Adams counting as a Canadian could be a similar choice. It all comes down to right price.
So will watch as we get closer to TC to see if we made some sort of adjustment.
Do you mean the 8th "Canadian" aka - American whose been here awhile? We have a whole ton of guys who qualify for that. Make it Stanley Bryant or Hardrick or Jefferson or Jeffcoat. I don't think we've actually seen exactly how it's going to break out/be policed so they likely all qualify. The more interesting decision is the Americans who are going to be taking 49% of a Canadian's snaps on O and D.
Let's say Demski gets hurt again for a few weeks. Instead of automatically reaching for O'Leary-Orange, we could platoon Alexander and the Halletts and start an American at receiver. It will open up some interesting possibilities, especially when Canadians get hurt which has always been one of the huge problems with the ratio. The flexibility will help backfill the lack of Canadian depth that every team has.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on February 27, 2023, 07:34:36 PM
Do you mean the 8th "Canadian" aka - American whose been here awhile? We have a whole ton of guys who qualify for that. Make it Stanley Bryant or Hardrick or Jefferson or Jeffcoat. I don't think we've actually seen exactly how it's going to break out/be policed so they likely all qualify. The more interesting decision is the Americans who are going to be taking 49% of a Canadian's snaps on O and D.
Let's say Demski gets hurt again for a few weeks. Instead of automatically reaching for O'Leary-Orange, we could platoon Alexander and the Halletts and start an American at receiver. It will open up some interesting possibilities, especially when Canadians get hurt which has always been one of the huge problems with the ratio. The flexibility will help backfill the lack of Canadian depth that every team has.
Yes, the 8th Canadian as you defined.
It's not a question entirely of who qualifies. It's a question of which of those players is only going to see 49% or less of snaps. There is no way barring injury that Bryant, Hardrick, Jeffcoat or Jefferson will fall into that category.
In your example of Demski getting hurt: I don't see the need or possibility of platooning Alexander and Hallett in order to start an American at receiver. We don't have that receiver that qualifies. If we had re-signed Ellingson and used him as a Nationalized Import as a rotation player, that would work.
If we sign Darvin Adams he'd qualify but these are SMS issues. Find an import veteran that works closer to an ELC.
I suggested players like Awe ( before he signed a new deal ), Lacey, Lemon or Coleman but these are not low cost players.We haven't signed any of them.
Ah well. I can see the benefit and we may add that player or two before TC.
Realistically I think doing it on the defence will be easier than on offence.
Quote from: Blue In BC on February 27, 2023, 08:31:50 PM
Yes, the 8th Canadian as you defined.
It's not a question entirely of who qualifies. It's a question of which of those players is only going to see 49% or less of snaps. There is no way barring injury that Bryant, Hardrick, Jeffcoat or Jefferson will fall into that category.
In your example of Demski getting hurt: I don't see the need or possibility of platooning Alexander and Hallett in order to start an American at receiver. We don't have that receiver that qualifies. If we had re-signed Ellingson and used him as a Nationalized Import as a rotation player, that would work.
If we sign Darvin Adams he'd qualify but these are SMS issues. Find an import veteran that works closer to an ELC.
I suggested players like Awe ( before he signed a new deal ), Lacey, Lemon or Coleman but these are not low cost players.We haven't signed any of them.
Ah well. I can see the benefit and we may add that player or two before TC.
Realistically I think doing it on the defence will be easier than on offence.
Good potential for an older DT, who could platoon with Jake and Cam Lawson, Coleman may be the best candidate left who qualifies but they could also dig up Nevis.
Quote from: Blue In BC on February 27, 2023, 08:31:50 PM
Yes, the 8th Canadian as you defined.
It's not a question entirely of who qualifies. It's a question of which of those players is only going to see 49% or less of snaps. There is no way barring injury that Bryant, Hardrick, Jeffcoat or Jefferson will fall into that category.
In your example of Demski getting hurt: I don't see the need or possibility of platooning Alexander and Hallett in order to start an American at receiver. We don't have that receiver that qualifies. If we had re-signed Ellingson and used him as a Nationalized Import as a rotation player, that would work.
If we sign Darvin Adams he'd qualify but these are SMS issues. Find an import veteran that works closer to an ELC.
I suggested players like Awe ( before he signed a new deal ), Lacey, Lemon or Coleman but these are not low cost players.We haven't signed any of them.
Ah well. I can see the benefit and we may add that player or two before TC.
Realistically I think doing it on the defence will be easier than on offence.
You are getting confused on a few points.
So the 8th "Canadian" has no snap limitations. I am going to assume that just like any other "real" Canadian (okay, not real, but as defined by the ratio) any American that meets the criteria qualifies for that spot. Any American starter who has been in the league for five years or the same team for three counts. We have a whole bunch of players eligible for that.
The 49% snap count only relates to the 2 (3 next year) naturalized Americans who can replace one of the 7 starting Canadians for half the game. We don't need to have a "receiver that qualifies". We could platoon Hallett and Alexander and start a first year American receiver because we'd now have 2 Canadian spots on defense (and 5 on O), even though the safety spot it rotated nearly 50/50.
I find this stuff a wee bit hard spinning. Nice to have some folks that understand it lol.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on February 27, 2023, 11:05:05 PM
You are getting confused on a few points.
So the 8th "Canadian" has no snap limitations. I am going to assume that just like any other "real" Canadian (okay, not real, but as defined by the ratio) any American that meets the criteria qualifies for that spot. Any American starter who has been in the league for five years or the same team for three counts. We have a whole bunch of players eligible for that.
The 49% snap count only relates to the 2 (3 next year) naturalized Americans who can replace one of the 7 starting Canadians for half the game. We don't need to have a "receiver that qualifies". We could platoon Hallett and Alexander and start a first year American receiver because we'd now have 2 Canadian spots on defense (and 5 on O), even though the safety spot it rotated nearly 50/50.
You're right I may be confused about some points and still am.
Those players that count are already starting. I see no advantage in platooning Alexander with Hallett since Alexander is a better player.
Even the idea of starting a 1st year receiver ( as the example ) is an issue. It assumes we use a DI spot to do that. Our receiving corps is not a weak area.
As the post above yours and what I commented earlier, I think Coleman would be an example of the kind of player we could use. Ultimately we need an import that isn't normally a starter that will only play 1/2 a game. That's what I said in the post your quoted.
The line below is copied from your earlier comment. That seems like you contradicting yourself?
" The more interesting decision is the Americans who are going to be taking 49% of a Canadian's snaps on O and D".
Quote from: Blue In BC on February 28, 2023, 01:22:42 PM
You're right I may be confused about some points and still am.
Those players that count are already starting. I see no advantage in platooning Alexander with Hallett since Alexander is a better player.
Even the idea of starting a 1st year receiver ( as the example ) is an issue. It assumes we use a DI spot to do that. Our receiving corps is not a weak area.
As the post above yours and what I commented earlier, I think Coleman would be an example of the kind of player we could use.
We wouldn't use a DI spot in that scenario (another change is that there are only 2 DIs this year). The advantage would be the gain of an American who you perceive as better than your backup Canadian at the cost of a 49-51 rotation of a 'national' spot (in that example). There is the potential for an advantage there even if you don't see it.
Scenario: Demski is hurt. How best to replace him with your depth?
Traditional option: Replace Demski with another Canadian receiver or bench another American elsewhere on offense or defense so you can start an import receiver there.
2023 option: Rotate Alexander (who qualifies as a naturalized Canadian) with Hallett 49%/51% of snaps and start an import at receiver.
Benefits: Alexander gets a game cheque and still plays. A superior import starts at receiver to replace Demski's production.
Obviously this assumes the import is better than O'Leary-Orange. Or at least it assumes that the import receiver is a net benefit with Alexander starting 49% (instead of 100%). Is it actually? That's for the coaches to decide but it is a decision that they have the opportunity to make now.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on February 28, 2023, 01:41:44 PM
We wouldn't use a DI spot in that scenario (another change is that there are only 2 DIs this year). The advantage would be the gain of an American who you perceive as better than your backup Canadian at the cost of a 49-51 rotation of a 'national' spot (in that example). There is the potential for an advantage there even if you don't see it.
Scenario: Demski is hurt. How best to replace him with your depth?
Traditional option: Replace Demski with another Canadian receiver or bench another American elsewhere on offense or defense so you can start an import receiver there.
2023 option: Rotate Alexander (who qualifies as a naturalized Canadian) with Hallett 49%/51% of snaps and start an import at receiver.
Benefits: Alexander gets a game cheque and still plays. A superior import starts at receiver to replace Demski's production.
Obviously this assumes the import is better than O'Leary-Orange. Or at least it assumes that the import receiver is a net benefit with Alexander starting 49% (instead of 100%). Is it actually? That's for the coaches to decide but it is a decision that they have the opportunity to make now.
Yikes. Only 2 DI's was news to me. I suppose that means 2 players are re-classified as Nationalized instead of DI's. Obviously an advantage would be gained if an import is better than the Canadian back up. While many of our imports could qualify as Nationalized, there aren't any that should see reps reduced.
Our roster can and will change before and during TC.
My question or point is that kind of player doesn't exist on our roster at the moment. Based on our current roster, can you name our 2 DI's and our 2 Nationalized players?
I'm liking this Nationalized American idea less and less.
Quote from: Blue In BC on February 28, 2023, 03:22:20 PM
Yikes. Only 2 DI's was news to me. I suppose that means 2 players are re-classified as Nationalized instead of DI's. Obviously an advantage would be gained if an import is better than the Canadian back up. While many of our imports could qualify as Nationalized, there aren't any that should see reps reduced.
Our roster can and will change before and during TC.
My question or point is that kind of player doesn't exist on our roster at the moment. Based on our current roster, can you name our 2 DI's and our 2 Nationalized players?
I'm liking this Nationalized American idea less and less.
Players that can qualify as the nationalized 8th "Canadian" (reminder: they can play 100% of snaps):
Adam Bighill
Willie Jefferson
Winston Rose
Brandon Alexander
Jermarcus Hardrick
Stanley Bryant
Rasheed Bailey
Janarion Grant
Jackson Jeffcoat
Kyrie Wilson
On top of the nationalized player playing 100% of snaps, there are 2 more nationalized Americans (from the list above) that can replace 49% of snaps from a Canadian (one on offense and defense this year). This is where the conversation gets more interesting.
Assuming everyone is healthy, on offense you likely see Janarion Grant as a Naturalized player. On Defense it's harder to say because we only have one national starter (Thomas/Lawson) last year which doesn't leave a lot of room to maneuver. Last year towards the end of the season our DIs were Grant (SB/WR), Adams (DE), Holm (HB) and Cole (MLB). None of those three defensive players are eligible as anything but DIs. On paper, Alexander still makes the most sense to me (if you are looking for someone on D) but in a perfect would we would have a DT that could take reps from Thomas/Lawson (although that can still be done without any new action if you have Briggs, Cadwallader, Gauthier, or Maruo sub at will/mlb). Perhaps the Bombers (when perfectly healthy) would only have one (Grant). There will absolutely be more options and cases to be made once the injuries hit though.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on February 28, 2023, 03:54:31 PM
Players that can qualify as the nationalized 8th "Canadian" (reminder: they can play 100% of snaps):
Adam Bighill
Willie Jefferson
Winston Rose
Brandon Alexander
Jermarcus Hardrick
Stanley Bryant
Rasheed Bailey
Janarion Grant
Jackson Jeffcoat
Kyrie Wilson
On top of the nationalized player playing 100% of snaps, there are 2 more nationalized Americans (from the list above) that can replace 49% of snaps from a Canadian (one on offense and defense this year). This is where the conversation gets more interesting.
Assuming everyone is healthy, on offense you likely see Janarion Grant as a Naturalized player. On Defense it's harder to say because we only have one national starter (Thomas/Lawson) last year which doesn't leave a lot of room to maneuver. Last year towards the end of the season our DIs were Grant (SB/WR), Adams (DE), Holm (HB) and Cole (MLB). None of those three defensive players are eligible as anything but DIs. On paper, Alexander still makes the most sense to me (if you are looking for someone on D) but in a perfect would we would have a DT that could take reps from Thomas/Lawson (although that can still be done without any new action if you have Briggs, Cadwallader, Gauthier, or Maruo sub at will/mlb). Perhaps the Bombers (when perfectly healthy) would only have one (Grant). There will absolutely be more options and cases to be made once the injuries hit though.
It gets complicated quickly, in his last press-conference Walters said they have no plans to make use of this adjustment this year, but will keep their eyes open to see what other teams do with it. I could see them making use of it later in the season or in the playoffs if they thought it could give them an advantage. As a fan I hate the push to replace more Natl's with Imports, more trying to fix what isn't broken.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on February 28, 2023, 04:46:54 PM
It gets complicated quickly, in his last press-conference Walters said they have no plans to make use of this adjustment this year, but will keep their eyes open to see what other teams do with it. I could see them making use of it later in the season or in the playoffs if they thought it could give them an advantage. As a fan I hate the push to replace more Natl's with Imports, more trying to fix what isn't broken.
My guess is that they will ultimately make use of it but will largely come down to injuries. Walters is also talking to multiple audiences here, so if he says he has plans for it, he is basically telling the guys listed in my list that they could be only playing half the game. From the Canadian perspective, he's telling his current starters they may not be full time starters anymore.
Additionally, assuming things stay largely the same, it makes no sense not to make Grant a nationalized player because he is able to sub for Canadians and there's literally no downside to having that option.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on February 28, 2023, 03:54:31 PM
Players that can qualify as the nationalized 8th "Canadian" (reminder: they can play 100% of snaps):
Adam Bighill
Willie Jefferson
Winston Rose
Brandon Alexander
Jermarcus Hardrick
Stanley Bryant
Rasheed Bailey
Janarion Grant
Jackson Jeffcoat
Kyrie Wilson
On top of the nationalized player playing 100% of snaps, there are 2 more nationalized Americans (from the list above) that can replace 49% of snaps from a Canadian (one on offense and defense this year). This is where the conversation gets more interesting.
Assuming everyone is healthy, on offense you likely see Janarion Grant as a Naturalized player. On Defense it's harder to say because we only have one national starter (Thomas/Lawson) last year which doesn't leave a lot of room to maneuver. Last year towards the end of the season our DIs were Grant (SB/WR), Adams (DE), Holm (HB) and Cole (MLB). None of those three defensive players are eligible as anything but DIs. On paper, Alexander still makes the most sense to me (if you are looking for someone on D) but in a perfect would we would have a DT that could take reps from Thomas/Lawson (although that can still be done without any new action if you have Briggs, Cadwallader, Gauthier, or Maruo sub at will/mlb). Perhaps the Bombers (when perfectly healthy) would only have one (Grant). There will absolutely be more options and cases to be made once the injuries hit though.
If we only have 2 DI's and 2 of the Nationalized come from the " list mentioned ", doesn't that reduce the number of Americans on the roster by 2? All of those players are starters.
Even Collaros qualifies as a Nationalized player. There isn't anybody on the list except Grant that I want to see have less reps. Hence the issue of the entire Nationalized concept.
Quote from: Blue In BC on February 28, 2023, 05:11:36 PM
If we only have 2 DI's and 2 of the Nationalized come from the " list mentioned ", doesn't that reduce the number of Americans on the roster by 2? All of those players are starters.
Even Collaros qualifies as a Nationalized player. There isn't anybody on the list except Grant that I want to see have less reps. Hence the issue of the entire Nationalized concept.
Nope. You still have 20 Americans per game day roster (not including QBs). Usually, 16 of the Americans start. The remaining 4 can be DIs/nationalized players (2 each). What the change is trying to do is instead of the DIs only being allowed to sub for American players, 2 could also sub for Canadian players (and 3 next year) for 49% of snaps.
Of course you don't want any of those guys to have less snaps. But let's say Demski and O'Leary Orange are hurt. We have no good roster options to start a Canadian there any longer. So, you have to roster an American WR and make up the ratio somewhere else. In the past, that means an American starter loses his starting spot for no real fault of his own. In our current roster make-up, honestly, it's probably Alexander for Nick Hallett as that drop off didn't crush us last year. Or maybe Clements/Wilson for Gauthier. Instead of completely sitting Alexander or Clements/Wilson (or playing a Rifles receiver, gah) we could platoon the position with Wilson and Gauthier or Hallett and Alexander and play an American at WR. Got it? It's a win-win.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on February 28, 2023, 06:09:39 PM
Nope. You still have 20 Americans per game day roster (not including QBs). Usually, 16 of the Americans start. The remaining 4 can be DIs/nationalized players (2 each). What the change is trying to do is instead of the DIs only being allowed to sub for American players, 2 could also sub for Canadian players (and 3 next year) for 49% of snaps.
Of course you don't want any of those guys to have less snaps. But let's say Demski and O'Leary Orange are hurt. We have no good roster options to start a Canadian there any longer. So, you have to roster an American WR and make up the ratio somewhere else. In the past, that means an American starter loses his starting spot for no real fault of his own. In our current roster make-up, honestly, it's probably Alexander for Nick Hallett as that drop off didn't crush us last year. Or maybe Clements/Wilson for Gauthier. Instead of completely sitting Alexander or Clements/Wilson (or playing a Rifles receiver, gah) we could platoon the position with Wilson and Gauthier or Hallett and Alexander and play an American at WR. Got it? It's a win-win.
I get what this is trying to do. As I've said from the beginning it falls to who the 4 DI / Nationalized players turn out to be. That's where we currently lose any advantage. Sure if Demski is injured we could insert Agudosi as an option. The two fold problem is that Agudosi is not on the game day roster as a DI and we'd have to bench Alexander for half the game.
IMO we'd actually continue to play another Canadian ( O'Leary-Orange ) both in game and on going if a starting Canadian receiver is injured.
Essentially a given team needs 2 veteran imports that don't normally start to be part of the 4 extra imports. Whether they are called DI's or Nationalized is clerical.
Brings me back to a player like Coleman who would fit the bill. Walker moves to a starting role and Coleman replaces him in the rotation player role.
Quote from: Blue In BC on February 28, 2023, 07:39:31 PM
I get what this is trying to do. As I've said from the beginning it falls to who the 4 DI / Nationalized players turn out to be. That's where we currently lose any advantage. Sure if Demski is injured we could insert Agudosi as an option. The two fold problem is that Agudosi is not on the game day roster as a DI and we'd have to bench Alexander for half the game.
IMO we'd actually continue to play another Canadian ( O'Leary-Orange ) both in game and on going if a starting Canadian receiver is injured.
Essentially a given team needs 2 veteran imports that don't normally start to be part of the 4 extra imports. Whether they are called DI's or Nationalized is clerical.
Brings me back to a player like Coleman who would fit the bill. Walker moves to a starting role and Coleman replaces him in the rotation player role.
I think you're sort of thinking about it wrong. It's less of an in-game injury thing and more of a way to deal with long term injuries. You're not going to try and roster experienced imports in case a Canadian gets hurt in the 3rd quarter. You're going to use the flexibility over the medium-long term if you get a bunch of injuries to your Canadian starters for which there's no real ability to have much depth for.
One thing to consider - the 2 teams whose nationals play the most snaps during the season get a bonus draft pick at the end of the 2nd round. There is an incentive to not take full advantage of the naturalized American rules.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on February 28, 2023, 07:54:02 PM
I think you're sort of thinking about it wrong. It's less of an in-game injury thing and more of a way to deal with long term injuries. You're not going to try and roster experienced imports in case a Canadian gets hurt in the 3rd quarter. You're going to use the flexibility over the medium-long term if you get a bunch of injuries to your Canadian starters for which there's no real ability to have much depth for.
You aren't going to have much success finding veterans after the first few games. You need to have them in TC and agree to a PR spot. As we did with Nathan Roosevelt in 2021. The catch is will that type of veteran sit on the PR.
Being able to add a rookie import to replace a starting Canadian is at the cost of sitting a veteran import for half the game.
In 2022 we got to add McCrae as a receiver because Wilson and Alexander were both long term injuries. In fact we ended up starting 3 Canadians on defence with Gauthier at WIL and Hallett at safety.
If both of those players were healthy that would not have been the trade off made IMO. O'Leary-Orange would have stepped in as he did for a few games when ratio criteria changed.
Every game is a bit of a juggling act but I stand with the need for 2 veteran imports that aren't starting, listed as Nationalized as the best solution. Whether we find them or not, looks less likely at the moment especially after comments from O'Shea.
Veterans = SMS cost and roster size and where imports actually start.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on February 28, 2023, 07:54:02 PM
I think you're sort of thinking about it wrong. It's less of an in-game injury thing and more of a way to deal with long term injuries. You're not going to try and roster experienced imports in case a Canadian gets hurt in the 3rd quarter. You're going to use the flexibility over the medium-long term if you get a bunch of injuries to your Canadian starters for which there's no real ability to have much depth for.
I think you have the correct perspective. Blue in BC, bless his heart, seems to get vapour-locked on the how the new nationalized players interface with the DI designation. We've been around the mulberry bush on this issue awhile ago. To be fair, the league hasn't really spelled out how this works from a procedural view, so there are some leaps in logic and assumptions that need to be made, and we will have to see how it works in practice.
My own theory is that teams are likely to use the new status players in positions that already see a high degree of rotation and substitution. I think this will happen through "triangulation", using 3 players to fill 2 positions. Example will be the MLB and WIL positions. The Bombers could designate Bighill as a nationalized CDN and DI and use him in rotation with Kyrie Wilson and Gauthier.
Why would we sit Bighill? We already give him regular rests in the defensive rotation. In this 3 person example, let's assume (for purposes of easy math) there are 100 defensive snaps in a game. Between MLB and WIL there are 200 reps available. We need to play Gauthier for 55 snaps for him to count as a starter. Bighill, as the DI/Naturalized can play 45 snaps, but he can also come in as a sub for Wilson, for say 30 snaps. That scenario works out with Bighill at 75 snaps, Wilson at 70 snaps and Gauthier at 55 snaps. So, counterintuitively, Bighill plays the most snaps even though he is the DI.
I could see a lot of teams using this approach at DE, although in the Bombers case, I don't see the Cdn DE who makes it work. On offence, I think the two-man platooning between Janarion Grant and Wolitarsky is most likely, although I would not expect it to get a ton of use. Grant hasn't established himself as an effective downfield receiver, and since the Bombers tend to use their DIs on defence, I don't see them adding another one to the offensive side.
I could be wrong though....
Quote from: the paw on February 28, 2023, 11:34:53 PM
I think you have the correct perspective. Blue in BC, bless his heart, seems to get vapour-locked on the how the new nationalized players interface with the DI designation. We've been around the mulberry bush on this issue awhile ago. To be fair, the league hasn't really spelled out how this works from a procedural view, so there are some leaps in logic and assumptions that need to be made, and we will have to see how it works in practice.
My own theory is that teams are likely to use the new status players in positions that already see a high degree of rotation and substitution. I think this will happen through "triangulation", using 3 players to fill 2 positions. Example will be the MLB and WIL positions. The Bombers could designate Bighill as a nationalized CDN and DI and use him in rotation with Kyrie Wilson and Gauthier.
Why would we sit Bighill? We already give him regular rests in the defensive rotation. In this 3 person example, let's assume (for purposes of easy math) there are 100 defensive snaps in a game. Between MLB and WIL there are 200 reps available. We need to play Gauthier for 55 snaps for him to count as a starter. Bighill, as the DI/Naturalized can play 45 snaps, but he can also come in as a sub for Wilson, for say 30 snaps. That scenario works out with Bighill at 75 snaps, Wilson at 70 snaps and Gauthier at 55 snaps. So, counterintuitively, Bighill plays the most snaps even though he is the DI.
I could see a lot of teams using this approach at DE, although in the Bombers case, I don't see the Cdn DE who makes it work. On offence, I think the two-man platooning between Janarion Grant and Wolitarsky is most likely, although I would not expect it to get a ton of use. Grant hasn't established himself as an effective downfield receiver, and since the Bombers tend to use their DIs on defence, I don't see them adding another one to the offensive side.
I could be wrong though....
This discussion continues to offer some insight to this new option, thanks all.
I can't see or want Grant to play as a down field receiver. That said some touches on offence is ok in other ways.
Quote from: pjrocksmb on March 01, 2023, 12:14:20 AM
This discussion continues to offer some insight to this new option, thanks all.
Not to me: I'm more confused now than when I started!! ;D :D
Quote from: the paw on February 28, 2023, 11:34:53 PM
I think you have the correct perspective. Blue in BC, bless his heart, seems to get vapour-locked on the how the new nationalized players interface with the DI designation.
BinBC is usually the one explaining the ratio rules to me! If BinBC is a bit lost, then I'm afraid that the whole thing has already lost at least 75% of the uber fans here. That's to say nothing of the "normal" fans who just like going to games.
Garbage convoluted roster rules like these are not good for anyone, nor for the league. I'm highly dissatisfied. At the very least the CFL can't put a web page up that definitively lists the current rules?? No one seems to know for sure what they are or where they are written (that isn't from 2021). Sad.
Here's my take after reading everything: vet IMPs that may be falling off the wagon have an extended lease on life, and probably a bump in value. I love Darvin, but no one would be talking him up as a possibility were these new rules not in place. And maybe it helps finagle ARs when a top-tier NAT gets a big injury. Seems like a lot of cruft to get those questionable results.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on February 28, 2023, 09:52:19 PM
One thing to consider - the 2 teams whose nationals play the most snaps during the season get a bonus draft pick at the end of the 2nd round. There is an incentive to not take full advantage of the naturalized American rules.
Extra 2nd RDP has value even if for nothing else as trade-bait. Thus, I would hope KW is assigning some junior yeoman to track where we stand in this "race" during the season. If we're anywhere close to being in the "top-3" of this, we need to do the extra work to ensure we end up winning those extra DPs. I would hope the league is going to publish this stat each week? Otherwise said yeoman is going to have to track the stat for
every team! Ouch.
Quote from: the paw on February 28, 2023, 11:34:53 PM
I think you have the correct perspective. Blue in BC, bless his heart, seems to get vapour-locked on the how the new nationalized players interface with the DI designation. We've been around the mulberry bush on this issue awhile ago. To be fair, the league hasn't really spelled out how this works from a procedural view, so there are some leaps in logic and assumptions that need to be made, and we will have to see how it works in practice.
My own theory is that teams are likely to use the new status players in positions that already see a high degree of rotation and substitution. I think this will happen through "triangulation", using 3 players to fill 2 positions. Example will be the MLB and WIL positions. The Bombers could designate Bighill as a nationalized CDN and DI and use him in rotation with Kyrie Wilson and Gauthier.
Why would we sit Bighill? We already give him regular rests in the defensive rotation. In this 3 person example, let's assume (for purposes of easy math) there are 100 defensive snaps in a game. Between MLB and WIL there are 200 reps available. We need to play Gauthier for 55 snaps for him to count as a starter. Bighill, as the DI/Naturalized can play 45 snaps, but he can also come in as a sub for Wilson, for say 30 snaps. That scenario works out with Bighill at 75 snaps, Wilson at 70 snaps and Gauthier at 55 snaps. So, counterintuitively, Bighill plays the most snaps even though he is the DI.
I could see a lot of teams using this approach at DE, although in the Bombers case, I don't see the Cdn DE who makes it work. On offence, I think the two-man platooning between Janarion Grant and Wolitarsky is most likely, although I would not expect it to get a ton of use. Grant hasn't established himself as an effective downfield receiver, and since the Bombers tend to use their DIs on defence, I don't see them adding another one to the offensive side.
I could be wrong though....
You have a lot of theories including that you could be wrong. Hence the discussion.
The idea of platooning the MLB and WIL position is somewhat interesting since we did that a lot in 2022. Although that was due to Wilson's injury for part of the reason.
Bighill is probably in the top 3 SMS's on our defence. Where to draw a line between needing to give him a rest or doing in order to platoon is a different conversation.
Gauthier played better in 2022 than I thought him capable. Briggs did the same in 2021 at WIL. Realistically I don't see us intending to rotate more at MLB or WIL as you've outlined.
Keep in mind those are in game situations but don't necessarily resolve a longer term injury at MLB or WIL in the example used. In your example for these roster spots someone like D. Lacey sitting on the PR or 1 game IR is a resolution in " theory ". Can we sign him for that role at an SMS we can afford? Probably not but it's the kind of situation I see needed to address. The longer term replacement for any position needs to be on the roster and able to practice with the team.
You don't bring a player in on Thursday and start him on Saturday / Sunday. He has to be into game condition and practice etc. I've suggested several players that could have fit the bill for both a DI and a Nationalized player. It's not unusual for the Bombers to have a DE or DT as a DI. Lemon or Coleman fit both criteria. The fly in the ointment is SMS hit and willingness of those players to accept that role.
The league does need to clarify this more. Regardless it's an interesting conversation about how we think this will work and why.