Ok, somewhat of a re-hash. Somewhat just rhetorical babbling in the early morning.
In theory we probably see 2024 OL draft choices Ethan Kalra and Michael Vlahogiannis get added before TC. If we have a good opportunity to draft an OL, we may see that happen as well, although a chance that he returns to college for 1 more season. In that sense no impact to the final roster for 2025 per se.
Either way, depending on whether we change the ratio on the OL, I'd expect 1 of the two from 2024 end up on the Ar and the other on the PR.
Interested to see how Cobb and Gassama look in TC. Both are little in stature but could have some upside. Very likely we see 1 on the AR and 1 on the PR. Not sure either could play on coverage teams. Gassama might have the edge as an in game replacement at RB and receiver over Cobb who may only be receiver depth.
We lost 2 Canadian DB's in Ford and Hallett but added Makonzo and Hagerty. Both seem to have upside and at the moment I think both end up on the AR. That may change if we draft a DB. There appear to be some quality players available if they don't get NFL tryouts or picked before we do.
I think I spoke about DL earlier but the ranking seem to indicate that may be the strongest area of this years draft. IF a bunch don't get NFL tryouts, that might be what we do with an early pick.
Leroux probably ends up on the PR. He's probably the future going into 2026?
Since we don't know who we draft or at what position, it's not easy to determine what players might be at risk. I have a few ideas, but no point in naming names in an open conversation. That's more something done in a DM format.
The only certainty is that there are going to be some changes.
At the moment, I am looking forward to what some of the current new faces might bring to our roster and how it adjusts ratio decisions.
TC can't come soon enough.
Former Bomber third-round CFL draft pick Jeremy Murphy retires at age 25.
https://3downnation.com/2025/03/27/former-third-round-cfl-draft-pick-jeremy-murphy-retires-at-age-25/
He played three games over two seasons with the Bombers but never registered a reception during the regular season. Probably could have re-signed him as depth if they wanted to.
I think we restock OL as highest priority. Whether that's previous-year picks or current-year picks. We may have a pretty packed dev cupboard going into week 1. If we get lucky we will find a year-1 starter who can take over for Randolph (my projected starter) mid-season.
However, I said the same thing last draft and we drafted no OL in the early rounds!
Boy, it would sure be nice to find a NAT OT who could eventually replace Bryant when he retires...
We're going to have some good talent in TC that will force some tough decisions across the roster. Losing 2 Canadian starters means how we employ the ratio is still a TBD.
I'm hoping we don't need to use a 3 import OL but if we do either short term or long term, so be it.
Looking forward to the draft to see if it gives an idea of what direction we're taking. It's possible that our 1st pick might be fighting to be a starter at some point in 2025.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on March 31, 2025, 05:48:25 AMI think we restock OL as highest priority. Whether that's previous-year picks or current-year picks. We may have a pretty packed dev cupboard going into week 1. If we get lucky we will find a year-1 starter who can take over for Randolph (my projected starter) mid-season.
However, I said the same thing last draft and we drafted no OL in the early rounds!
Boy, it would sure be nice to find a NAT OT who could eventually replace Bryant when he retires...
Not sure why you are fixated on Randoph as the starter over Wallace. I am quite confident Wallace comes to camp ready to start.
Yes, Oline is always a concern, short and long term. Which is why we have 10 on the roster for camp, and more coming in DP's and late TC adds.
Randolph/Vanterpool seem heir apparent for Sir Stanley's spot. Unless someone new makes an impression.
Finding a NAT OT is not a concern at all, especially due to the cap hit one would command. Our "skilled player" Nat depth is more than enough to even allow a 2 Nat Oline, let alone a 4 Nat...
It would also be nice to start finding & dev'ing the next Demski. He's starting to get up there in age too. If the top NAT REC don't blossom until year 2-5, need to get started soon.
We've had many years of Demski/Woli being legit threats instead of just mostly-useless NAT placeholders. It would be nice for that to continue.
Quote from: theaardvark on March 31, 2025, 03:22:57 PMNot sure why you are fixated on Randoph as the starter over Wallace. I am quite confident Wallace comes to camp ready to start.
Yes, Oline is always a concern, short and long term. Which is why we have 10 on the roster for camp, and more coming in DP's and late TC adds.
Randolph/Vanterpool seem heir apparent for Sir Stanley's spot. Unless someone new makes an impression.
Finding a NAT OT is not a concern at all, especially due to the cap hit one would command. Our "skilled player" Nat depth is more than enough to even allow a 2 Nat Oline, let alone a 4 Nat...
He says right in his post that it's his projected starter. His guess is as good as anyone's right now.
Personally I think stocking the offensive line with majority of canadians is due for a change. In the past teams have done this because of a lack of cdn talent at the so called skill positions. Its also an area which is going up dramatically in salary. (look at Desjaurlais at 250k and even Dobson at over 200k)
What is the difference if you find a starting cdn at wr and go with 3 instead of 2?
The overall starting ratio can stay the same. A lot of this cdn down linemen is simply coaches/gms doing it that way because that's how its been done in the past.
As cdn players develope esp at db, recr and even lineback options open up
Quote from: Pete on April 01, 2025, 09:46:25 PMPersonally I think stocking the offensive line with majority of canadians is due for a change. In the past teams have done this because of a lack of cdn talent at the so called skill positions. Its also an area which is going up dramatically in salary. (look at Desjaurlais at 250k and even Dobson at over 200k)
What is the difference if you find a starting cdn at wr and go with 3 instead of 2?
The overall starting ratio can stay the same. A lot of this cdn down linemen is simply coaches/gms doing it that way because that's how its been done in the past.
As cdn players develope esp at db, recr and even lineback options open up
I think you're right about this.
particularly when you have an aging, non mobile quarterback, and you are in a lot of trouble if he's injured.
If a receiver drops a pass, you get to try again. If a lineman blows a block, your season might be over.
Even moreso given the dirt that is basically allowed in the CFL against quarterbacks.
Fifteen yard penalty for knocking the two time mvp out of the game is a huge win.
Quote from: Pete on April 01, 2025, 09:46:25 PMPersonally I think stocking the offensive line with majority of canadians is due for a change. In the past teams have done this because of a lack of cdn talent at the so called skill positions. Its also an area which is going up dramatically in salary. (look at Desjaurlais at 250k and even Dobson at over 200k)
What is the difference if you find a starting cdn at wr and go with 3 instead of 2?
The overall starting ratio can stay the same. A lot of this cdn down linemen is simply coaches/gms doing it that way because that's how its been done in the past.
As cdn players develope esp at db, recr and even lineback options open up
Absolutely.
Quote from: Pete on April 01, 2025, 09:46:25 PMPersonally I think stocking the offensive line with majority of canadians is due for a change. In the past teams have done this because of a lack of cdn talent at the so called skill positions. Its also an area which is going up dramatically in salary. (look at Desjaurlais at 250k and even Dobson at over 200k)
What is the difference if you find a starting cdn at wr and go with 3 instead of 2?
The overall starting ratio can stay the same. A lot of this cdn down linemen is simply coaches/gms doing it that way because that's how its been done in the past.
As cdn players develope esp at db, recr and even lineback options open up
Oline / Dline are spots that made up the majority of NAT players traditionally. And they weren't paid like they are today.
"Ratio breakers" used to demand the higher paycheques as they were harder to find.
Now, any starting NAT is getting paid.
he advantage to loading up on linemen as Nat starters is longevity. While they may take extra time to develop, they generally last a lot longer... eg. Neufeld and Thomas.
If you can start NATs at "skill" positions, that's always a bonus. If they are better than just starters, even better. But starting at least 3 NAT hoggies is still the standard, and I think we should be playing a guard at guard, not a tackle at guard...
Getting back to the non counters. If I understand this correctly there will be less Canadians that are non counters coming into their 2nd season after returning to college.
That's a mathematical change which in the early short term of TC will reduce total roster space. In theory that would be 6 or so less imports. Depending on a few 2024 draft choices coming or not coming back to TC this year, that total could be 10 spots.
In practicality it means some will quickly see the door as others are on standby are added. Overall it will reduce the total number of players in TC at any point in time and have a nominal savings on TC costs.
I don't see that as an issue per se. IMO There are too many bodies to deal with in a short TC and pre season. IIRC at the start of TC the roster count is 75 plus non counters. With the new rule only the 2025 draft choices will be non counters?
That should mean 75 + 9 = 84 maximum? It's not clear whether global draft choices in 2025 are non counters but that's only 2 players if they report.
In 2024 we had over 100 players to start TC.
Quote from: Pete on April 01, 2025, 09:46:25 PMPersonally I think stocking the offensive line with majority of canadians is due for a change. In the past teams have done this because of a lack of cdn talent at the so called skill positions. Its also an area which is going up dramatically in salary.
100%. I've been saying this for a while. It used to be you NEEDED 3 NAT OL because otherwise you're fielding 1-3 Sam Hurls. And Sam Hurls lose you games.
But look at our situation in '24! 3 legit skill NAT on O, 2 legit NAT on D, and a perfectly reasonable NAT DT.
Why on earth pay $225 for a NAT OG, when you can get a great IMP OG for $150! That's a huge difference.
The only way 3-NAT OL makes sense is if you do a great job drafting and strike gold every 1-3 seasons with a first-year-starter OL, and you also get a 2nd-year-starter OL every 1-2 seasons. That was the formula for our success basically since Bond left.
Funny how the instant our first-year-starter luck ran out (about the time Gray was installed) that's around when we stopped winning cups. Every NAT starter we drafted from Gray and beyond has been worse than the one that came before. Desjar was our last superstar draft.
Don't get me wrong: Dobson & Ko-man are more than serviceable, as was Gray, but they can't hold a candle to Desjar. And it was Desjar still here that got us that last cup.
As perennial late-pickers in the draft (because we win too much), I don't see that changing. And the general OL draft talent may be declining, for whatever reason. So really our best solution to reverse this trend is to bring in that 3rd IMP OL and hope to draft 2nd-3rd year starting slight-gamble OL in later rounds.
Of course they key to this working is to keep finding and retaining really-good-but-not-too-great NATs on D (Kramdi is the perfect example; with Ford being just a hair too good), and possibly at REC (a bit harder to do as the stars go high in the draft).
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.
The OL protects your most valuable player the QB so that adds value from a different direction.
Eventually most reach free agency and sanity goes out the window. The marketplace dictates a players value.
Quote from: Jesse on April 01, 2025, 08:27:58 PMHe says right in his post that it's his projected starter. His guess is as good as anyone's right now.
I re-watched half of the Ti-Cat game with Randolph at LT in for Bryant and Wallace in for Neufeld at RG and Wallace looked very comfortable. Such a big guy, nobody is going to over power him and he looked well balanced as well. 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.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 04, 2025, 05:00:40 PMRandolph 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.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 04, 2025, 01:26:07 PMOL 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...
Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 05, 2025, 09:27:06 AMOne 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.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 05, 2025, 01:48:14 PMWe 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.
Quote from: Jesse on April 05, 2025, 03:14:56 PMThe 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.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 05, 2025, 09:24:23 AMHaha, 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.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 05, 2025, 04:20:40 PMIt'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.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 05, 2025, 04:37:47 PMRandolph 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.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 06, 2025, 10:38:45 AMFor 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.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 06, 2025, 04:34:10 PMStan 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.
Quote from: Pigskin on April 06, 2025, 06:44:48 PMDidn'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.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 06, 2025, 07:55:42 PMYes, 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
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 06, 2025, 07:55:42 PMYes, 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.
Quote from: dd on April 06, 2025, 11:01:34 PMI 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 $$ FA in 10 months?
Again, if Randolph shows well at LG, still no team will want him. But if Wallace shows well then he'll get the next "Dobson deal". Instead, let him dev some more and then sign him to 2 years in FA26 at a very low price.
It also could turn out Wallace is (just) the next Eli: a good-priced, reliable, jumbo/TE guy. We've seen that before with Spooner, etc. Some guys just aren't made to be legit starters.
I still think if an OT gets injured it's Neuf shuffling to his spot. Neuf did better at his few times at OT than Randolph. Neuf is at least as good as Rice at that position, and Rice started about 3/4 of MTL's cup-winning season.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 07, 2025, 12:31:23 AMIn the past we've sometimes let our dev guys dev for 3 seasons. We don't always start a NAT DP in year 1 or 2. Sure, you'd like to be able to, but I don't think it's a bad thing if you don't.
Plus, if he has great upside, there's some strategic AR finagling you can do here to keep his price down come next FA... Why show everyone he's the next Desjar and lose him to big $$ 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.
Due to cost losing Natl. O-linemen has almost become an annual event and it's taking it's toll, I'd hate to lose Wallace the same way. It's time for Walters to change tack and pony up the cash needed to retain their best O-line prospects over the long term, ensuring continuity is maintained.
Whatever advantage they once held has been lost and they'll have to pay competitive wages to retain their best. Neufeld and Stan have been the constants thru their run of dominance but they'll soon be gone, it's time to establish the next wave of replacements and Wallace and Randolph might be the 2 building blocks to begin with.