Blue Bombers Forum

Heading down to BC for this one. Strev. had a nice game, but it will be nice to get ZC8 back. The injury report should come out on Monday for both teams.

I'm not expecting practice until Tuesday so we may not get IR reports on Monday. Tuesday, Wednesday with walk through Thursday, travel on Friday.

OTOH, it might be a 3 practice week and Collaros will need to get up to game speed.

Just a guess but Rourke probably can't play this week. He'd have difficulty throwing and we're in his head.

Are you in town for more than game day? Maybe we hook up for lunch?

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 14, 2025, 10:45:57 PMI'm not expecting practice until Tuesday so we may not get IR reports on Monday. Tuesday, Wednesday with walk through Thursday, travel on Friday.

OTOH, it might be a 3 practice week and Collaros will need to get up to game speed.

Just a guess but Rourke probably can't play this week. He'd have difficulty throwing and we're in his head.

Are you in town for more than game day? Maybe we hook up for lunch?

Flying in on Friday afternoon. Myself and the 3 grandkids, so my hands are pretty full. But, thanks for the offer.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 14, 2025, 10:45:57 PMJust a guess but Rourke probably can't play this week. He'd have difficulty throwing and we're in his head.

What's his injury?  The only thing I saw was limping after an awkward on-leg tackle on one of his scrambles (proving a running QB gets injured more! Stats be darned).

They have to start Rourke unless he's dying.  Masoli won't beat us, clearly.  And they won't sell seats if Rourke is out.

I think we should keep up the pressure and weirdness.  We fooled their D (and O!) a whack ton.  Peterson clearly threw them for a loop.

Find a way to start Cooley.  BC will have no idea what to do with that.  If Cooley isn't as good as Peterson, then Peterson steps in.

This would mean no Ayers or we put Wallace @ LG.

I might also look at trying someone else in Sterns' spot.  It's early days, why not see what Reggie can do?

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 15, 2025, 06:58:12 AMWhat's his injury?  The only thing I saw was limping after an awkward on-leg tackle on one of his scrambles (proving a running QB gets injured more! Stats be darned).

They have to start Rourke unless he's dying.  Masoli won't beat us, clearly.  And they won't sell seats if Rourke is out.

Oblique injury which is going to impact his throwing. Fans won't know until game day so it won't impact sales.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 15, 2025, 07:00:31 AMI think we should keep up the pressure and weirdness.  We fooled their D (and O!) a whack ton.  Peterson clearly threw them for a loop.

Find a way to start Cooley.  BC will have no idea what to do with that.  If Cooley isn't as good as Peterson, then Peterson steps in.

This would mean no Ayers or we put Wallace @ LG.

I might also look at trying someone else in Sterns' spot.  It's early days, why not see what Reggie can do?

You don't seem to understand the context of ratio. Taking Ayers out doesn't help maintaining 7 Canadian starters. Taking out Vanterpool would work if we choose to add Cooley to maintain ratio and starting Canadians. 

OTOH, you want to start Cooley instead of Peterson after he rushed for 130 yards in his 1st game? I like Cooley but he just has the wrong passport.

Ayers had 3 ST's and is a very good player.

Aside from all of that, we'd have to 1 game IR either of those choices since neither would be willing to go back to PR.

If Brady can't go, Peterson starts at RB and we don't miss a beat.

according to the roster on the website this is what we have for RB/FB:

brady o
matt peterson
chris ike-smith
cooley
logan

that is it.

let's assume BO goes to the one game, logan is already hurt (no timeline on return)

i am thinking somehow cooley has to get activated.  we use the FB as a unique position and they largely contribute to blocking and extra protection. 

going into a game with one Rb and one FB seems risky, you could play Demski at RB and play Corcoran in his spot as a plan B if injuries happen, but having to do this type of maneuvering on game 2 kinda smacks of roster mismanagement. 

maybe there is someone out there they will bring in or they know BO is good to go.   

It's a normal issue for starting Canadians. If either Demski or Clercius get injured, then we're starting Corcoran. If Kramdi gets injured we probably have to replace him with Griffin which creates a domino effect.

Oliveria is the best RB in the league and he's a Canadian. It will always be an issue if he can't play. All that said Peterson looked very good. Yes he could get injured in warm ups but he could also play injury free for at least the next game.

Question # 1 is can Oliveria play this week?

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 15, 2025, 01:18:31 PMYou don't seem to understand the context of ratio. Taking Ayers out doesn't help maintaining 7 Canadian starters. Taking out Vanterpool would work if we choose to add Cooley to maintain ratio and starting Canadians. 

OTOH, you want to start Cooley instead of Peterson after he rushed for 130 yards in his 1st game? I like Cooley but he just has the wrong passport.

Ayers had 3 ST's and is a very good player.

Aside from all of that, we'd have to 1 game IR either of those choices since neither would be willing to go back to PR.

The one way to make room for Cooley is to replace Sterns with Corcoran and bring Cobb on as a backup, not fair to Sterns or Petersen but minor disruption elsewhere. I don't think they'll consider this option, unless Brady is out for 3-4 games they're not likely to move Cooley off the PR. He chose the wrong planet to crash his rocket ship into.

if rourke isn't playing do we adjust our roster different if playing Masoli ?

i think Rourke will play - if it's just pain management there are things for that.

Quote from: The Zipp on June 15, 2025, 04:31:16 PMif rourke isn't playing do we adjust our roster different if playing Masoli ?

i think Rourke will play - if it's just pain management there are things for that.

Sad sack Masoli better shape up and demonstrate he still has some of the old magic left in his back pocket or he's not long for this world.  Doman not likely to tolerate pathetic performance for long, Cameron Dukes would be a better option.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 15, 2025, 04:22:18 PMThe one way to make room for Cooley is to replace Sterns with Corcoran and bring Cobb on as a backup, not fair to Sterns or Petersen but minor disruption elsewhere. I don't think they'll consider this option, unless Brady is out for 3-4 games they're not likely to move Cooley off the PR. He chose the wrong planet to crash his rocket ship into.

If Oliveria is out longer term we might be scanning TC cuts for Canadian RB's as depth. It might depend on how well Peterson performs. Obviously he could get injured on the 1st play of the next game. OTOH did we expect Oliveria to only play 4 plays before he got hurt?

We do have Chris-Ike as in game depth.

Depth is a tough road to hoe.

Good interview with Petersen starts 1:50 in, bit long but you get a good sense of who this kid is within the first 20 minutes, very motivated and focused on playing football.  Born in the US, moved to Brooks at 4 and bounced back and forth between Canada and US a few times, most of his football training happened in Canada, so he's a legitimate Natl.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 15, 2025, 04:57:37 PMGood interview with Petersen starts 1:50 in, bit long but you get a good sense of who this kid is within the first 20 minutes, very motivated and focused on playing football.  Born in the US, moved to Brooks at 4 and bounced back and forth between Canada and US a few times, most of his football training happened in Canada, so he's a legitimate Natl.

sounds like he will fit in perfectly in a MOS world.

I think Zach and Wheatie are going to light it up big time.  Peterson will be good but not as strong as last game as they will adjust.  Demski will be his usual self and on offense we will do well by distributing the ball to more of our weapons.

OL will play well.  D will be very good but give up a few big plays.  ST will be good but nothing crazy.  We win by 7.  A closer battle for round 2.  All depends on BC's QB who I think will struggle at times.

Maybe a couple plays for our FB?

If Brady is out, you start Peterson to maintain the ratio and either put Logan on as the returner/extra RB for Vaval or Ayers or you put on Cooley and take off Ayers. Only 4 DIs (Castillo and Griffen aren't coming off), so its between Vaval or Ayers. If Vaval is the returner, it has to be Ayers. Cobb on as an extra Canadian and back up receiver.

Quote from: RebusRankin on June 15, 2025, 08:20:33 PMIf Brady is out, you start Peterson to maintain the ratio and either put Logan on as the returner/extra RB for Vaval or Ayers or you put on Cooley and take off Ayers. Only 4 DIs (Castillo and Griffen aren't coming off), so its between Vaval or Ayers. If Vaval is the returner, it has to be Ayers. Cobb on as an extra Canadian and back up receiver.

that is prob it or you ride with demski as the backup RB

Chris Ike is in the lineup as well so we re good for backup RB

It's rare a team wins these back to back matchups but I think we beat them at home this week

Quote from: dd on June 15, 2025, 09:56:33 PMChris Ike is in the lineup as well so we re good for backup RB

It's rare a team wins these back to back matchups but I think we beat them at home this week

then who is FB?  we keep him in at FB to help with blocking

Quote from: dd on June 15, 2025, 09:56:33 PMChris Ike is in the lineup as well so we re good for backup RB

It's rare a team wins these back to back matchups but I think we beat them at home this week

MCI is a fullback, not a running back. He's never had a carry in a CFL game.

Quote from: RebusRankin on June 15, 2025, 10:05:06 PMMCI is a fullback, not a running back. He's never had a carry in a CFL game.

He's only played 9 CFL games.

During his college days, Chris-Ike dressed for 27 career games with the Hornets, rushing 114 times for 486 yards and three touchdowns over four seasons with the team.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 15, 2025, 01:18:31 PMYou don't seem to understand the context of ratio. Taking Ayers out doesn't help maintaining 7 Canadian starters. Taking out Vanterpool would work if we choose to add Cooley to maintain ratio and starting Canadians. 

OTOH, you want to start Cooley instead of Peterson after he rushed for 130 yards in his 1st game? I like Cooley but he just has the wrong passport.

Yes, I know the ratio.  You can DI Cooley and get him on field by matching him with Corcoran in Sterns' spot, or putting in jumbo with the extra 2 NATs (in for Sterns/Wheatie).

That way both RBs can do their thing, and both backup each other, solving the backup problem.

I still strongly believe Vanterpool at LG is not our "desired" OL.  We won't know until Lofton isn't on IR.  We still need to know if Mafia wants 3 IMP OL or 3 NAT.

As for "you don't take out the hot hand", I firmly believe BC will do much better at shutting Peterson down in game 2.  Film is a powerful thing.

However, with Zach back and the air attack on full blast we may benefit from BC focusing on the run and it may not matter anyhow as we pass the ball to all the open space.

There's another option: if Brady is not quite good enough to start, he may still be good enough to dress as Peterson backup.  In other words, we don't want to put the strain on him, but he can do it in a worst-case scenario.

We rarely need the backup RB, so this could work.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 15, 2025, 11:11:16 PMYes, I know the ratio.  You can DI Cooley and get him on field by matching him with Corcoran in Sterns' spot, or putting in jumbo with the extra 2 NATs (in for Sterns/Wheatie).

That way both RBs can do their thing, and both backup each other, solving the backup problem.

I still strongly believe Vanterpool at LG is not our "desired" OL.  We won't know until Lofton isn't on IR.  We still need to know if Mafia wants 3 IMP OL or 3 NAT.

As for "you don't take out the hot hand", I firmly believe BC will do much better at shutting Peterson down in game 2.  Film is a powerful thing.

However, with Zach back and the air attack on full blast we may benefit from BC focusing on the run and it may not matter anyhow as we pass the ball to all the open space.

I m hoping we see Collaros moving the ball around to all his recievers and no more 'force it to Kenny' plays. Peterson will still get his reps running the ball, but I think we'll be airing it out more than last game

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 15, 2025, 10:53:58 PMHe's only played 9 CFL games.

During his college days, Chris-Ike dressed for 27 career games with the Hornets, rushing 114 times for 486 yards and three touchdowns over four seasons with the team.

He's actually played 10. My point was that I don't think its a good idea to have your fullback, who has never had a CFL carry and hasn't been used for anything other than blocking and teams as your back up rb.

I also don't think its a great idea to weaken your receiving corps with Zach coming back (ie taking out Sterns or another american receiver and using Cobb/Corcoron). Take out Ayers, get either Logan or Cooley on as a back up running back and use Sterns or Mitchell or White.

Quote from: RebusRankin on June 15, 2025, 08:20:33 PMIf Brady is out, you start Peterson to maintain the ratio and either put Logan on as the returner/extra RB for Vaval or Ayers or you put on Cooley and take off Ayers. Only 4 DIs (Castillo and Griffen aren't coming off), so its between Vaval or Ayers. If Vaval is the returner, it has to be Ayers. Cobb on as an extra Canadian and back up receiver.

Seems the most likely scenario.

If Olivera can't go then I'd like to see them put in Cooley, if you don't put him in when Olivera is injured when do you?
I'd put in Cobbs to replace Sterns, with Wheatie looking like the 3rd go to receiver, there wouldn't be a significant drop off (Sterns had only 13 yards last game) The added production with Cooley would more than make up for it.
They likely wouldn't sit Ayers as O'Shea is always enamored with top ST players

One thing to consider about Cooley is that he the physical type and that fits with how we play going all the way back to Andrew Harris. Especially I am thinking the "grind out the 4th quarter when leading" philosophy that we do better than anyone.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 15, 2025, 11:11:16 PMYes, I know the ratio.  You can DI Cooley and get him on field by matching him with Corcoran in Sterns' spot, or putting in jumbo with the extra 2 NATs (in for Sterns/Wheatie).

That way both RBs can do their thing, and both backup each other, solving the backup problem.

I still strongly believe Vanterpool at LG is not our "desired" OL.  We won't know until Lofton isn't on IR.  We still need to know if Mafia wants 3 IMP OL or 3 NAT.

As for "you don't take out the hot hand", I firmly believe BC will do much better at shutting Peterson down in game 2.  Film is a powerful thing.

However, with Zach back and the air attack on full blast we may benefit from BC focusing on the run and it may not matter anyhow as we pass the ball to all the open space.

I don't think you do. You suggest multiple changes to starters and the roster in order to get Cooley on the roster. All that in order to add a RB that would be an injury replacement and back up whichever one you choose.

Unless Cooley is a viable alternative as a receiver, this is insanity. It's possible that Sterns may be replaced in a few games or even possibly this week if they choose to add Mitchell. But I don't believe that happens in order to get Cooley on the roster.

Let's at least wait until we know with certainty the status of BO.

Quote from: RebusRankin on June 16, 2025, 01:43:46 AMHe's actually played 10. My point was that I don't think its a good idea to have your fullback, who has never had a CFL carry and hasn't been used for anything other than blocking and teams as your back up rb.

I also don't think its a great idea to weaken your receiving corps with Zach coming back (ie taking out Sterns or another american receiver and using Cobb/Corcoron). Take out Ayers, get either Logan or Cooley on as a back up running back and use Sterns or Mitchell or White.

It's not the best option to need Chris-Ike as at the injury replacement but his college experience can't be over looked either. I might point out that Cooley has no experience in a regular season CFL game either. For that matter neither did Peterson.

I agree that taking out an import receiver to add another Canadian receiver is risky as well.

Your idea to get Cooley on by taking out Ayers won't happen. Replacing Vaval with Logan I doubt happens the way Vaval is playing. Replacing Vaval with Cooley means giving up a lot on the return game.

None of those options allows Cooley to start. You can't replace a Canadian starter with an import without another change. That effectively means Cooley would be sitting on the bench since he's not a returner or receiver.

Noting that any injury to Demski, Clercius or Kramdi are not really covered well depth wise replacing with another Canadian.  Not having the luxury of 8 -10 Canadians starters is more limiting than in 2024.

Monday, June 16
Practice: 11:05 a.m. – 12:45 p.m.
Cameras permitted to film: 11:35 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.

Quote from: The Zipp on June 16, 2025, 02:56:24 PMMonday, June 16
Practice: 11:05 a.m. – 12:45 p.m.
Cameras permitted to film: 11:35 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.

I'm a little surprised that we are practising today. I expected a Tues and Wed with walk thru on Thursday. More can't hurt with Collaros having to sit out last week. Further adjustments due to injury situations as well.

Any updates from those attending practice will help understanding possible changes to roster.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 16, 2025, 03:06:26 PMI'm a little surprised that we are practising today. I expected a Tues and Wed with walk thru on Thursday. More can't hurt with Collaros having to sit out last week. Further adjustments due to injury situations as well.

Any updates from those attending practice will help understanding possible changes to roster.

i guess a Thursday to Sat game split warrants 4 days of practice...full schedule isn't posted yet. Assume tues or wed will be closed and walkthough on Thursday - travel Friday?

I think several players on the 1 game IR are possible candidates to return to the AR although I'm not sure any will actually be activated.

Jones and Woods fall into a decision choice and ratio issues ( no room ). Until we have an injury, that probably doesn't change.

Mitchell is not a ratio issue per se, so that's a TBD when or if they make a move one way or the other. I thin originally he was expected to be a # 1 or # 2 receiver. Based on how Wheatfall has looked in practice and game 1, the situation / need has changed. Where would he fit in?

While I don't know if Logan is healthy, he might be a choice to replace Sterns and be a possible back up at RB and returner. He does have some experience as a receiver and Sterns is essentially the # 5 receiver.

Now I'm not trying to diss Sterns, just looking for possibilities / reasons why a specific change might be made based on needs this week due to injury.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 16, 2025, 03:32:00 PMI think several players on the 1 game IR are possible candidates to return to the AR although I'm not sure any will actually be activated.

Jones and Woods fall into a decision choice and ratio issues ( no room ). Until we have an injury, that probably doesn't change.

Mitchell is not a ratio issue per se, so that's a TBD when or if they make a move one way or the other. I thin originally he was expected to be a # 1 or # 2 receiver. Based on how Wheatfall has looked in practice and game 1, the situation / need has changed. Where would he fit in?

While I don't know if Logan is healthy, he might be a choice to replace Sterns and be a possible back up at RB and returner. He does have some experience as a receiver and Sterns is essentially the # 5 receiver.

Now I'm not trying to diss Sterns, just looking for possibilities / reasons why a specific change might be made based on needs this week due to injury.

There are quite a few good or experienced players lined up in reserve, Jones, Woods, Schmeck, Mitchell, Coolie, White, maybe Logan once he recovers, until injuries start to effect the roster it's hard to see how the kinks are going to work out.  The situation is somewhat similar to the Argos last season where Jon Jones and a few other very good players were listed behind the starters, that's depth, something the Bombers lacked last season in many positions. It's a much better situation than having a bunch of no-names on the PR.

Day 1 of Bombers practice:

RB Brady Oliveira is here, not dressed.  Same for LS Mike Benson.

S Josh Hagerty was running in warmups...an improvement on his injury situation.

Watching for the ratio change that the Bombers will make with Oliveira's injury.
Could be receiver, maybe more likely it's at left guard.

They'll certainly bring RB Quinton Cooley on. So an American will have to come off.

from derek taylor

Quote from: The Zipp on June 16, 2025, 04:40:11 PMDay 1 of Bombers practice:

RB Brady Oliveira is here, not dressed.  Same for LS Mike Benson.

S Josh Hagerty was running in warmups...an improvement on his injury situation.

Watching for the ratio change that the Bombers will make with Oliveira's injury.
Could be receiver, maybe more likely it's at left guard.

They'll certainly bring RB Quinton Cooley on. So an American will have to come off.

from derek taylor

LOL, cue the speculation! 

Update from Bomberland: Zach Collaros back at QB1, Matthew Peterson in Brady Oliveira's spot. Gabe Wallace getting work at right guard

Also: Quinton Cooley getting some work at RB, too.

from ed tait

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 16, 2025, 01:06:20 PMIt's not the best option to need Chris-Ike as at the injury replacement but his college experience can't be over looked either. I might point out that Cooley has no experience in a regular season CFL game either. For that matter neither did Peterson.

It also can't be overlooked that we drafted and have used Chris-Ike as a FB.

We signed and played Cooley in the preseason as a RB. And chose to keep him on the PR despite the ratio implications.

Quote from: Jesse on June 16, 2025, 05:09:11 PMIt also can't be overlooked that we drafted and have used Chris-Ike as a FB.

We signed and played Cooley in the preseason as a RB. And chose to keep him on the PR despite the ratio implications.

You can't overlook that he's listed as a RB on our roster either. Positional designations don't mean much.  where else would we have played him in pre-season besides RB? 

It seems pretty obvious that if Oliveira can't go, Cooley is getting on the roster somehow. The goal is to put together the best roster. That probably means not having your full-back or slot back play running back.

Quote from: The Zipp on June 16, 2025, 04:57:02 PMUpdate from Bomberland: Zach Collaros back at QB1, Matthew Peterson in Brady Oliveira's spot. Gabe Wallace getting work at right guard

Also: Quinton Cooley getting some work at RB, too.

from ed tait

Not sure why Wallace is at RG instead of LG although Neufeld was a GTD last week and may not be 100%. I have no idea how much better Vanterpool is over Wallace.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on June 16, 2025, 05:12:04 PMIt seems pretty obvious that if Oliveira can't go, Cooley is getting on the roster somehow.

It doesn't seem obvious at all but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Unless he's starting or they expect Peterson to fail, he won't be used much and that's a waste of a DI regardless.

There are about 50 possible choices to consider including having him start outright.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 16, 2025, 05:13:43 PMNot sure why Wallace is at RG instead of LG although Neufeld was a GTD last week and may not be 100%. I have no idea how much better Vanterpool is over Wallace.

Why would Wallace be at LG?

That's where Vanterpool played and, as you say, Neufeld is dealing with something.

Quote from: Jesse on June 16, 2025, 05:19:08 PMWhy would Wallace be at LG?

That's where Vanterpool played and, as you say, Neufeld is dealing with something.

Because it might be a possible choice if they intend to get Cooley on the roster as a starter or even a back up. That option would allow him to start and maintain the ratio.

I'm not proposing that but it's the clearest path to get him on the roster and not having an issue if he plays. Replacing Sterns would accomplish the same thing potentially but that creates a depth / experience issue at receiver.

We've heard that Oliveria isn't practising today but that was not unexpected. OTOH, we've had suggestions he may be gone for several games.  I think we need to hear how that will unfold before the panic sets in.

The boys are getting off the field in a few minutes, should be getting the injury updates soon.

Quote from: Pigskin on June 16, 2025, 05:43:10 PMThe boys are getting off the field in a few minutes, should be getting the injury updates soon.

Yeah but they don't really help. We expected Oliveria and Benson to be listed as DNP. That won't tell us the entire story. It was mentioned that Cooley is getting reps which makes sense regardless of any ultimate roster changes. If he starts getting more or most of the reps at # 1 then that would indicate a possible addition.

We might find out if players like Logan or Hagerty are potential choices. They are the only two that I think had injuries to deal with but the others were not IMO.

If Cooley gets on the roster, then rotating him in means a position change as well.

Can you sub Corcoran for Sterns?  or is Wallace in for Vanterpool the better sub.

Or do you just keep running Peterson?

Who comes off the Int roster to get Cooley on?  Do we 1 game Vanterpool (with the Wallace in sub is the choice)?  I can't see Mike Miller letting them take Ayers or Griffin away, do you 1 game Sterns to make it easy?  Does Zach need Sterns as an option, or can Corcoran get it done?

Here's O'Shea's post-practice presser. As usual, he's tight-lipped about the injury situation, and won't rule Brady out for Saturday.

https://www.bluebombers.com/2025/06/16/coach-oshea-june-16-2/ (https://www.bluebombers.com/2025/06/16/coach-oshea-june-16-2/)

Quote from: theaardvark on June 16, 2025, 07:24:15 PMIf Cooley gets on the roster, then rotating him in means a position change as well.

Can you sub Corcoran for Sterns?  or is Wallace in for Vanterpool the better sub.

Or do you just keep running Peterson?

Who comes off the Int roster to get Cooley on?  Do we 1 game Vanterpool (with the Wallace in sub is the choice)?  I can't see Mike Miller letting them take Ayers or Griffin away, do you 1 game Sterns to make it easy?  Does Zach need Sterns as an option, or can Corcoran get it done?

Tough questions about receivers. We've just barely had Sterns in a regular season game. One target and one reception for 13 yards. Corcoron is a CFL rookie so no sample size really. Those that go to practice might have a better insight.

I think the real answer is how much of a difference is there between Vanterpool and Wallace starting at LG. Did Neufeld being a GTD sway the decision on a 3 import OL?  It would be the obvious choice but I don't know that it's a good choice.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 16, 2025, 08:19:23 PMTough questions about receivers. We've just barely had Sterns in a regular season game. One target and one reception for 13 yards. Corcoron is a CFL rookie so no sample size really. Those that go to practice might have a better insight.

I think the real answer is how much of a difference is there between Vanterpool and Wallace starting at LG. Did Neufeld being a GTD sway the decision on a 3 import OL?  It would be the obvious choice but I don't know that it's a good choice.

I wouldn't mind seeing that experiment next weekend, I think it would confirm Wallace can hold his own at LG which would illustrate either ratio configurations will be effective. It's unlikely to be a game changer, fully expect the Bombers to administer another beat down.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 16, 2025, 08:19:23 PMTough questions about receivers. We've just barely had Sterns in a regular season game. One target and one reception for 13 yards. Corcoron is a CFL rookie so no sample size really. Those that go to practice might have a better insight.

I think the real answer is how much of a difference is there between Vanterpool and Wallace starting at LG. Did Neufeld being a GTD sway the decision on a 3 import OL?  It would be the obvious choice but I don't know that it's a good choice.

IMO, the last thing we would touch is the OL, which was amazing in game 1.

I have no idea why Ayers can't be the guy that comes off.

There's a multitude of ways to do it but that seems like the cleanest solution with the least drawbacks.

Use the roster rules properly and that's literally the only change you have to make - in game or otherwise. It's not ideal and O'Shea might not like it but it is a very easy way to fix a short term problem.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on June 16, 2025, 10:05:42 PMI have no idea why Ayers can't be the guy that comes off.

There's a multitude of ways to do it but that seems like the cleanest solution with the least drawbacks.

Use the roster rules properly and that's literally the only change you have to make - in game or otherwise. It's not ideal and O'Shea might not like it but it is a very easy way to fix a short term problem.

Ayers is a great ST player. In any case, while it could get Cooley on the AR it doesn't directly allow him to start. You have to replace a starting import with a starting Canadian. The two choices are Sterns or Vanterpool.

The transactions on CFL.CA show Sheahan moved to PR. What's that all about? Is Castillo going to take on all kicking?

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on June 16, 2025, 10:05:42 PMI have no idea why Ayers can't be the guy that comes off.

There's a multitude of ways to do it but that seems like the cleanest solution with the least drawbacks.

Use the roster rules properly and that's literally the only change you have to make - in game or otherwise. It's not ideal and O'Shea might not like it but it is a very easy way to fix a short term problem.

If O'Shea doesn't like it, do you really think it stands a chance of happening?

O'Shea stating his usual nothings on CJOB now.

Logan and Ball not practising yet. So that answers the question about Logan. Besides it will take awhile to get up to game speed and conditioning before he's a choice.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 15, 2025, 04:10:05 PMIt's a normal issue for starting Canadians. If either Demski or Clercius get injured, then we're starting Corcoran. If Kramdi gets injured we probably have to replace him with Griffin which creates a domino effect.

Oliveria is the best RB in the league and he's a Canadian. It will always be an issue if he can't play. All that said Peterson looked very good. Yes he could get injured in warm ups but he could also play injury free for at least the next game.

Question # 1 is can Oliveria play this week?

Smith would be Kramdi's backup and you wouldn't have to change the ratio.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 16, 2025, 10:18:07 PMAyers is a great ST player. In any case, while it could get Cooley on the AR it doesn't directly allow him to start. You have to replace a starting import with a starting Canadian. The two choices are Sterns or Vanterpool.

The transactions on CFL.CA show Sheahan moved to PR. What's that all about? Is Castillo going to take on all kicking?

Ya especially since we just released Evan's!!

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 16, 2025, 12:44:13 PMI don't think you do. You suggest multiple changes to starters and the roster in order to get Cooley on the roster. All that in order to add a RB that would be an injury replacement and back up whichever one you choose.

Unless Cooley is a viable alternative as a receiver, this is insanity.

You were saying?  Insanity?

You're a keen roster-following fan.  Answer me this one question: how many games in the last 3 years have we dressed only 1 "real" RB?  I really can't think of any.  We always had JA27 to start/backup, and usually an IMP RB like McCrae to get on AR when the franchise guy was on IR.

If we never did it before (or maybe once in an emergency) why would we do it now?  Mafia is nothing if not consistent.

Therefore they'll AR Cooley, because FB "doesn't count" and there are no other legit NAT RBs on the PR.  This is simple logic.

How they go about it many people have already given ideas, including me... and you.  The only question then becomes "start or backup"?

Quote from: Jesse on June 16, 2025, 05:19:08 PMWhy would Wallace be at LG?

That's where Vanterpool played and, as you say, Neufeld is dealing with something.

Not good news if Neuf is banged up (still).  We'll be weaker with Wallace in his spot.  Neuf was mega killer on blocks and stunt-pickups and roadgrading in game 1.  It was obscene how good and effective he was.

Plus that takes us even farther away from our chance to see the "desired" lineup!  At this rate we'll never see the desired lineup because the hot hand will win out, perhaps with one change to ease the ratio burden.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 16, 2025, 05:22:24 PMI think we need to hear how that will unfold before the panic sets in.

No one else is panicking.  In fact, I think most people are really excited to see what Cooley can bring.  And a Cooley-Peterson tag-team tandem would be even better, as the ratio will dictate if Cooley is DI.

BinBC, you're forgetting that we often (like 40%+ of the time) play jumbo, whether 5+FB, 6 (maybe + FB), or 7.  Every single one of the 6th, 7th and FB are NAT.

And we even more often put in some sort of jumbo on running plays.

If Cooley is DI (my guess) then he can freely come in with zero ratio implications every time we go any sort of jumbo.  Period.

The rest of the snaps are for Peterson, which will be nearly as good anyhow.  We can't lose with this arrangement.  And you can even get Cooley in on non-jumbo by giving Corcoran a couple of reps.  (The only thing you "lose" is Ayers, but we're deep enough at LB already and it's only for 1-2 games.)

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 17, 2025, 06:21:30 AMNot good news if Neuf is banged up (still).  We'll be weaker with Wallace in his spot.  Neuf was mega killer on blocks and stunt-pickups and roadgrading in game 1.  It was obscene how good and effective he was.

Plus that takes us even farther away from our chance to see the "desired" lineup!  At this rate we'll never see the desired lineup because the hot hand will win out, perhaps with one change to ease the ratio burden.

I think it's pretty expected that if he was a GTD a few days ago, he'd still have something lingering. Extra rest on the first practice of the week isn't uncommon for the vets anyways.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 17, 2025, 06:17:37 AMYou were saying?  Insanity?

You're a keen roster-following fan.  Answer me this one question: how many games in the last 3 years have we dressed only 1 "real" RB?  I really can't think of any.  We always had JA27 to start/backup, and usually an IMP RB like McCrae to get on AR when the franchise guy was on IR.

If we never did it before (or maybe once in an emergency) why would we do it now?  Mafia is nothing if not consistent.

Therefore they'll AR Cooley, because FB "doesn't count" and there are no other legit NAT RBs on the PR.  This is simple logic.

How they go about it many people have already given ideas, including me... and you.  The only question then becomes "start or backup"?

When was the last time we only started 7 Canadians? Some like McCrae could be used in the passing game but he was the primary returner. At this point Cooley cannot do any of that.  In the past when BO got nicked we mostly went away from the run game. Now if his injury is long term then there MIGHT be an argument.

So yes, I say insanity and interest in a rookie import RB with the wrong passport.  You're also thinking that Chris-Ike has zero skills as a RB even though he did in college.

Augustine rushed 222 times for about 1250 yards in 96 CFL games. Chris-Ike rushed 114 times in 27 games for just under 500 yards.  Last year when we had Augustine he was next up.  I'm not sure he can be successful but there is enough info to test him in practice.

Clearly Logan would have been the next man up if not for the injury. In 36 games he's carried the ball for nearly 900 yards, has receptions and is a primary returner. It doesn't appear he's healthy yet and it would be a shame to bump Vaval.

I guess we'll see what happens with BO and whether they adjust the ratio / DI's this week.

After Preseason O'Shea was talking about how we needed to find a way to get Cooley onto roster and see what he can do
This seems like the perfect opportunity to do so
 Peterson was great but it was one game. With Streveler in BC was so worried about him running ( Buck's influence) that it gave him openings.With Collaros you know they are gonna beef up the box and not spread out the linemen
 Im not sure whose the better blocker but that may enter into it as well.
 Whether its Ayers, Sterns, or Vanderpool thats a decision they can make

Quote from: Pete on June 17, 2025, 03:00:40 PMAfter Preseason O'Shea was talking about how we needed to find a way to get Cooley onto roster and see what he can do
This seems like the perfect opportunity to do so
 Peterson was great but it was one game. With Streveler in BC was so worried about him running ( Buck's influence) that it gave him openings.With Collaros you know they are gonna beef up the box and not spread out the linemen
 Im not sure whose the better blocker but that may enter into it as well.
 Whether its Ayers, Sterns, or Vanderpool thats a decision they can make

Valid points. I think the Lions can be run against and were'nt too happy with their DL. OTOH, you need a larger sample than 1 game to insert him.

How much did the coaches view the performance of Peterson versus the change to Cooley as the starter. We all understand the need to have a back up, but that is tough with limited DI's.

Each and every option has a different cost for team performance and even where to put a player removed. Put another way, if you move Vanterpool to 1 game IR and add Coolly, then you just added a game check over a PR check ( $3K more ).

I'm not sure any of the options mentioned would be willing to return to PR. However that is speculation.

derek Taylor says moving Sheehan was just a paper move and 100% he is punting in the game.

Quote from: The Zipp on June 17, 2025, 05:39:07 PMderek Taylor says moving Sheehan was just a paper move and 100% he is punting in the game.

Well it makes sense that he'll play. I don't understand what the paper move accomplished though. Odd to say the least. Unless he's getting an extension and they move him off the PR and re-sign him to an extension?

practice updates on twitter are really sparse today.  nothing from ed, limited from derek and bauming.  nothing even saying player X had a great catch, pass breakup - nothing ??

anyone there from the forum ?

Is there a global function with pay scales (the Hansen rule) that might allow them to pay him more after he's played 3 seasons and re-signs?  This would be his third season, and having played a game, now could be eligible to emerge from the global ELC max restriction, and get a little raise.

As to the difference between a PR IR and AR cheque, there does not have to be any at all.  We could be paying Cooley a full ELC game cheque on the PR, to keep him here.  I don't think he'd stay on a PR here behind Brady for min PR$.  After his preseason, he'd be scooped by someone for AR ELC money. 

Quote from: theaardvark on June 17, 2025, 06:33:35 PMIs there a global function with pay scales (the Hansen rule) that might allow them to pay him more after he's played 3 seasons and re-signs?  This would be his third season, and having played a game, now could be eligible to emerge from the global ELC max restriction, and get a little raise.

As to the difference between a PR IR and AR cheque, there does not have to be any at all.  We could be paying Cooley a full ELC game cheque on the PR, to keep him here.  I don't think he'd stay on a PR here behind Brady for min PR$.  After his preseason, he'd be scooped by someone for AR ELC money. 

You're dreaming if you think we're paying Cooley ELC instead of PR money. If they were going to do that they'd 1 game IR him in order to not use a PR roster spot.

We have had a Canadian ( Augustine ) on the AR since 2018 and haven't needed to PR an import. That and Oliveria hasn't missed many games since season 1. Since 2022 he's only missed 1 game.

There isn't a limit to number of players on 1 game IR. There is a limit on number of players on PR.

Nobody scoops up PR players.

As far as Sheahan and getting a raise I'm not sure when or if a global can get more. 

Quote from: theaardvark on June 17, 2025, 06:33:35 PMIs there a global function with pay scales (the Hansen rule) that might allow them to pay him more after he's played 3 seasons and re-signs?  This would be his third season, and having played a game, now could be eligible to emerge from the global ELC max restriction, and get a little raise.

As to the difference between a PR IR and AR cheque, there does not have to be any at all.  We could be paying Cooley a full ELC game cheque on the PR, to keep him here.  I don't think he'd stay on a PR here behind Brady for min PR$.  After his preseason, he'd be scooped by someone for AR ELC money. 

No reason to do that, why not pay every player on the PR ELC wages?  Players talk, can't pay one PR player more and 10 others less.

Cooley crash landed on the planet owned by the most dominant RB in the CFL who also happens to be the reigning MOP and MOC.  Either he didn't do his homework, had no knowledge of the ratio, or someone sold him a bill of goods regarding his opportunity to make the team. Could be they brought him in as TCF and he surprised everyone. If Petersen hadn't arrived at the same time it would have been easy enough to roster him, but as it is he fits like a square peg in a round hole. Possible scenario he gets in a few games this season, does well, and they trade him for draft picks or a more usable asset later on.  If not, gone next off-season.  One extra thought, when does Brady's deal expire?

Quote from: The Zipp on June 17, 2025, 05:39:07 PMderek Taylor says moving Sheehan was just a paper move and 100% he is punting in the game.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 17, 2025, 05:45:23 PMWell it makes sense that he'll play. I don't understand what the paper move accomplished though. Odd to say the least. Unless he's getting an extension and they move him off the PR and re-sign him to an extension?

During the practice week, a team must observe the 45 player limit but the ratio does not apply.

Mike O'Shea discussed the Sheahan move to the practice roster on the Coach's Show last night. It was a paper move to allow Zach Collaros on to the active roster from the suspended list.  Sheahan will be on the active roster when the depth chart is released – the move buys the team some time to make decisions.

He then elaborated on the process hinting that a healthy player may be moved to the 1-game injured list this week. Once a player is moved to the injured list, he is stuck there and must miss the next game. A player moved to the practice roster can be moved back to the active roster in the same week.

O'Shea stated that the Blue Bombers like to wait until the last possible moment before announcing the 45 players who will play and the corresponding moves to the injured list and/or practice roster.

After the depth chart is submitted, an injury substitution can be made up to 30 minutes before kickoff. The player removed from roster must end up on an injured list and a practice roster player can be added to the active roster.

Quote from: The Zipp on June 16, 2025, 04:57:02 PMUpdate from Bomberland: Zach Collaros back at QB1, Matthew Peterson in Brady Oliveira's spot. Gabe Wallace getting work at right guard

Also: Quinton Cooley getting some work at RB, too.

from ed tait

Derek Taylor mentioned that Wallace was working at left guard. In Ed Tait's article later in the day he said that Wallace got reps at left guard. Today, Derek Taylor mentioned that Wallace was back at left guard.

I think Ed's first post may have been an error.

Quote from: Stats Junkie on June 17, 2025, 07:47:30 PMDuring the practice week, a team must observe the 45 player limit but the ratio does not apply.

Mike O'Shea discussed the Sheahan move to the practice roster on the Coach's Show last night. It was a paper move to allow Zach Collaros on to the active roster from the suspended list.  Sheahan will be on the active roster when the depth chart is released – the move buys the team some time to make decisions.

He then elaborated on the process hinting that a healthy player may be moved to the 1-game injured list this week. Once a player is moved to the injured list, he is stuck there and must miss the next game. A player moved to the practice roster can be moved back to the active roster in the same week.

O'Shea stated that the Blue Bombers like to wait until the last possible moment before announcing the 45 players who will play and the corresponding moves to the injured list and/or practice roster.

After the depth chart is submitted, an injury substitution can be made up to 30 minutes before kickoff. The player removed from roster must end up on an injured list and a practice roster player can be added to the active roster.

Ok, sure but it seems pretty obvious that we move Artopoeus off the AR. We aren't dressing 4 QB's. Everybody in the country knows that. Whether we move him to PR, 1 game IR or release him outright is the only question.

This paper shuffle seems pointless.

Still no daily IR reports but we know pretty much what to expect. Nevertheless, what the heck?

Injury report from Facebook. No mention of Schmekel.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1253437889462874&set=a.790927029047298&__cft__[0]=AZX6N_MpFrljYSaDLcvrULqV8KYqE6h79B7PrQKlcqZF0u0NuX02tzyW4qViPW-b0dtUrquuSCTYwCeAAP2CVwIP35wCwuBeP5Gkolwi5_IXfkGnupP8Ru71aU-YlJK5ZF7k3FdwGgusmUtljbinIg1mrqKG-wNowPvPZZDXpr0-MscUJ0ydV1aqEpJD7YVvl2ge9re0Xv2Cdiun7jnuPc28xOmRn0IRe5VPCCp5kxvX8g&__tn__=EH-R

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 17, 2025, 08:23:11 PMInjury report from Facebook. No mention of Schmekel.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1253437889462874&set=a.790927029047298&__cft__[0]=AZX6N_MpFrljYSaDLcvrULqV8KYqE6h79B7PrQKlcqZF0u0NuX02tzyW4qViPW-b0dtUrquuSCTYwCeAAP2CVwIP35wCwuBeP5Gkolwi5_IXfkGnupP8Ru71aU-YlJK5ZF7k3FdwGgusmUtljbinIg1mrqKG-wNowPvPZZDXpr0-MscUJ0ydV1aqEpJD7YVvl2ge9re0Xv2Cdiun7jnuPc28xOmRn0IRe5VPCCp5kxvX8g&__tn__=EH-R

Schmeck is listed at the bottom, no injury full practice, same with Mitchell, Weitz and Jon Jones. Thrilled to see injured body parts identified!

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 17, 2025, 08:19:17 PMOk, sure but it seems pretty obvious that we move Artopoeus off the AR. We aren't dressing 4 QB's. Everybody in the country knows that. Whether we move him to PR, 1 game IR or release him outright is the only question.

This paper shuffle seems pointless.

Still no daily IR reports but we know pretty much what to expect. Nevertheless, what the heck?

Riders often carry 4 QB's, currently hiding Cohn on the 1 game IR behind Maier, and Stevens.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 17, 2025, 08:59:45 PMRiders often carry 4 QB's, currently hiding Cohn on the 1 game IR behind Maier, and Stevens.

Yes but not on the AR. It is still uncommon to carry an extra QB on any roster. I'm not saying we should cut him, just saying he's coming off the AR. Remote chance it's Wilson coming off but either way, who are we fooling? There is no need to hide that info to our opponent.

Jason Hogan, june 17


Jordan Younger June 17

Injuries

Over in Vancouver Nathan Rourke was listed as limited. Gary Peters who had an uncharacteristically bad outing in Winnipeg hits the list with a thigh injury and a limited designation. Also the early signs looks like they'll get Adam Auclair back - he practiced fully for the first time this year.

Lionbackers seems to be down for the last day so can't really get any feel about Rourke status. Limited suggests he could play but he might not be close to 100% and may not start. We're in his head and he may opt out. lol

This is funny

From 3 down

" He's very conscientious," said Winnipeg head coach Mike O'Shea of Peterson after the game, which would've set off a nation-wide "Understatement Alert" if such a thing existed."

If the team decides to add Munier-Bailey to the AR which Canadian is most probable to be removed? If BO can't play there is a domino effect that could change the answer. If they take out Vanterpool, then we might need to add Vibert. We could also see Cobb added in as receiver depth.

However, back to the base question I think Novak would be the odd man out. I'm not suggesting he isn't a good player but from a depth point of view, he's excess at the moment. Gaining Bailey would give us an additional player off the edge and coaches are high on him too.

Leroux probably comes in for Benson.

The rest depends on whether they decide to add Cooley. They might but the direct changes to accommodate that includes multiple options.

For that matter it's not 100% certain Oliveria doesn't dress. If his injury doesn't risk further damage, he could be the emergency back up rather than needing to start.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 18, 2025, 03:22:33 PMIf the team decides to add Munier-Bailey to the AR which Canadian is most probable to be removed? If BO can't play there is a domino effect that could change the answer. If they take out Vanterpool, then we might need to add Vibert. We could also see Cobb added in as receiver depth.

However, back to the base question I think Novak would be the odd man out. I'm not suggesting he isn't a good player but from a depth point of view, he's excess at the moment. Gaining Bailey would give us an additional player off the edge and coaches are high on him too.

Leroux probably comes in for Benson.

The rest depends on whether they decide to add Cooley. They might but the direct changes to accommodate that includes multiple options.

For that matter it's not 100% certain Oliveria doesn't dress. If his injury doesn't risk further damage, he could be the emergency back up rather than needing to start.

they could simply replace Kornelson, I don't think he saw any reps last game, and regardless of the Cooley decision i think it would be a good move anyway. As far as Olivera goes if he's not healthy enough to start don't even dress him we need him 100%

Quote from: Pete on June 18, 2025, 05:14:46 PMthey could simply replace Kornelson, I don't think he saw any reps last game, and regardless of the Cooley decision i think it would be a good move anyway. As far as Olivera goes if he's not healthy enough to start don't even dress him we need him 100%

Another ratio puzzle to solve, I don't think they would dress Kornelson along with Lawson and Jake if Woods was healthy, although they might have to.  Ratio flexibility is hampering lineup decisions in multiple positions.  Big picture, maintaining 3 Natls. on the O-line is an important objective.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 18, 2025, 03:22:33 PMIf the team decides to add Munier-Bailey to the AR which Canadian is most probable to be removed? If BO can't play there is a domino effect that could change the answer. If they take out Vanterpool, then we might need to add Vibert. We could also see Cobb added in as receiver depth.

However, back to the base question I think Novak would be the odd man out. I'm not suggesting he isn't a good player but from a depth point of view, he's excess at the moment. Gaining Bailey would give us an additional player off the edge and coaches are high on him too.

Leroux probably comes in for Benson.

The rest depends on whether they decide to add Cooley. They might but the direct changes to accommodate that includes multiple options.

For that matter it's not 100% certain Oliveria doesn't dress. If his injury doesn't risk further damage, he could be the emergency back up rather than needing to start.

Agree Novak

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 18, 2025, 06:07:55 PMAnother ratio puzzle to solve, I don't think they would dress Kornelson along with Lawson and Jake if Woods was healthy, although they might have to.  Ratio flexibility is hampering lineup decisions in multiple positions.  Big picture, maintaining 3 Natls. on the O-line is an important objective.

Getting Woods onto the AR is another tough choice regarding choosing the DI's. I don't think I ever expected to have both import DT's active at the same time. I'd like to but it's not easy. It seemed depth at DE would be the 1st choice. That meant seeing Person added.

Since Wood is still not healthy that's a question for another day. I don't think adding Person this week falls into the choices that will be made.

The injury to Oliveria and what we do about it is where choices will be made.

Injuries

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 18, 2025, 07:44:19 PMGetting Woods onto the AR is another tough choice regarding choosing the DI's. I don't think I ever expected to have both import DT's active at the same time. I'd like to but it's not easy. It seemed depth at DE would be the 1st choice. That meant seeing Person added.

Since Wood is still not healthy that's a question for another day. I don't think adding Person this week falls into the choices that will be made.

The injury to Oliveria and what we do about it is where choices will be made.

Going to re-watch the game to get a better understanding of what they did, but it seems they solved their pass rush problems in multiple ways, so the DE pass rush becomes less important.  Thinking back to last year  pretty sure they had 4 DT for most games, 2 Natls + 2 NI's, but it's hard to say what position Garbutt was playing much of the time. Willie may be the last of a dying breed of tall willowy DE's, even the Bombers have passed on guys that fit that mould.

Dod Clercius get nicked?  Not good...

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 18, 2025, 09:10:23 PMGoing to re-watch the game to get a better understanding of what they did, but it seems they solved their pass rush problems in multiple ways, so the DE pass rush becomes less important.  Thinking back to last year  pretty sure they had 4 DT for most games, 2 Natls + 2 NI's, but it's hard to say what position Garbutt was playing much of the time. Willie may be the last of a dying breed of tall willowy DE's, even the Bombers have passed on guys that fit that mould.

I think having added Vaughters at DE and Lawson back from injury at DT made a big difference. Also didn't think the Lions run game was that good in the 1st place.

My point was that we have Canadian depth at DT but not a lot going on for depth at DE. The global player could help in that regard and is a ratio freebe for the elimination of a Canadian back up, as mentioned perhaps Novak.  Novak probably only sees reps on ST's at the moment.

However there still isn't an open spot for Wood as a DI even when he's healthy. Keep in mind that when we were starting 8 or 9 Canadians that gave us a lot more flexibility.

I saw a couple of things on the daily IR list. One was the Clercius was a DNP. That doesn't mean he can't play but he's not 100%.

The other was that Rourke went from " limited " to " DNP ". I'm not convinced he'll play and if he does, he'll have difficulty with distance, velocity and accuracy IMO.  For that matter if impacts his mobility and ability to take a hit.

Lionbackers now suggesting that Rourke will not play and that forces a ratio change as well.

Quote from: theaardvark on June 18, 2025, 09:35:03 PMDod Clercius get nicked?  Not good...

Yeah, that's a concern on top of everything else. Might be necessary to add Cobb as receiver depth.

Quote from: theaardvark on June 18, 2025, 09:35:03 PMDod Clercius get nicked?  Not good...

On the bright side, I'd be very curious to see what Corcoran can do in live fire.  However, he'll probably suck on the blocking compared to Clercius: he seems tiny / water-buggy.

However, you are correct in that no Clercius would be far from ideal.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on June 17, 2025, 11:03:58 PMOver in Vancouver Nathan Rourke was listed as limited. Gary Peters who had an uncharacteristically bad outing in Winnipeg hits the list with a thigh injury and a limited designation.

Maybe Peters got hurt on the same high speed tackle that took out Brady.  LOL, it would have been better for everyone had he not caught up with Brady!

Quote from: Stats Junkie on June 17, 2025, 07:47:30 PMAfter the depth chart is submitted, an injury substitution can be made up to 30 minutes before kickoff. The player removed from roster must end up on an injured list and a practice roster player can be added to the active roster.

I've always wondered how this worked.  Thanks!  So the "punishment" for changing the roster on a GTD is the player MUST go to IR.  Kind of like the "3 plays" rule for an on-field injury works in-game.

However, it is limited to just 1 change?  If not, you could lie about a bunch of players who you wanted to send to IR anyhow being fake GTDs so the opponent doesn't know who you are really going to dress.  Then you send them to the IR like you always intended to.

Of course that would stand out like a sore thumb and get you frowns from the other teams...

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 17, 2025, 07:41:29 PMCooley crash landed on the planet owned by the most dominant RB in the CFL who also happens to be the reigning MOP and MOC.  Either he didn't do his homework, had no knowledge of the ratio, or someone sold him a bill of goods regarding his opportunity to make the team.

...

Possible scenario he gets in a few games this season, does well, and they trade him for draft picks or a more usable asset later on.  If not, gone next off-season.  One extra thought, when does Brady's deal expire?

I think many are jumping the gun on both Cooley and Peterson.  They are both rookies and really have proven nothing.  Even one great game by Peterson doesn't mean anything, because first game rookies often blow things up because of lack of film (not to diminish his initial success).

It would take sustained success over many games for either to be considered to be "worth" anything in terms of trade or other-team interest.  Until then the IMP is just one of many "dime a dozen" hopefuls, and Peterson is just another JA27 (not a bad thing, mind you).

We can all be hopeful though!  They certainly appear to have the "it" factor so far!

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 17, 2025, 04:59:17 PMI'm not sure any of the options mentioned would be willing to return to PR. However that is speculation.

Any/all of the rookies, or guys who were mostly on PR in '24, will be "willing to return to the PR".  If they're not, then they'll get Gaitor'd and Rutledge'd.

For example, Vanterpool, Randolph and Peterson should all have no expectations to be on AR.  And the fact that we've been practicing with Wallace at LG not only hints that we'll go with 3 NAT OL (and thus Vatnerpool to PR), but we're almost certainly ARing (and probably starting!) Cooley.

Again, let's not get ahead of ourselves on all of these "expected PR" guys being on the PR.  That's the normal dev route.  No one should get a big head.  If nothing else they've all seen how easy it is to get on the AR as ratios / IRs dictate.

Quote from: Pete on June 17, 2025, 03:00:40 PMAfter Preseason O'Shea was talking about how we needed to find a way to get Cooley onto roster and see what he can do
This seems like the perfect opportunity to do so

Yup and yup.  MOS made the rare statement about Cooley.  Haven't heard that since Schoen and D.Alford's first TC's/PS's.  And I don't think he said they "needed to find a way", I think he said "they have to find a way" to get him rostered.

There may not be a more perfect time to do so than now.  It'll be darn hard to get Cooley on AR when Brady is healthy because Cooley seems to be a one-trick pony (too bad for him).  If he could return or REC, it would be a different story...

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 18, 2025, 09:40:52 PMThe other was that Rourke went from " limited " to " DNP ". I'm not convinced he'll play and if he does, he'll have difficulty with distance, velocity and accuracy IMO.  For that matter if impacts his mobility and ability to take a hit.

Lionbackers now suggesting that Rourke will not play and that forces a ratio change as well.

According to Farhan Lalji, Rourke was QB1 during the walk through portion of Tuesday's practice. Rourke then sat out the full speed portion of the practice with Jeremiah Masoli taking over as QB1.

Nathan Rourke - post practice on Tuesday

- it still hurts
- it is something that could turn into a longer injury if not handled properly

Quote from: Stats Junkie on June 19, 2025, 06:32:36 AM- it still hurts
- it is something that could turn into a longer injury if not handled properly

Ya, I can't believe no one has brought up Fajardo's legendary "obliques".  Man did TSN play that store TO DEATH that year going into our WDF.

So if you want to know how long Rourke will be out, just try to remember how long Fajardo was out.  I think it was a couple/few weeks.  And when he went into that WDF he was clearly 100% -- TSN talking points notwithstanding.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 19, 2025, 05:53:52 AMI think many are jumping the gun on both Cooley and Peterson.  They are both rookies and really have proven nothing.  Even one great game by Peterson doesn't mean anything, because first game rookies often blow things up because of lack of film (not to diminish his initial success).

It would take sustained success over many games for either to be considered to be "worth" anything in terms of trade or other-team interest.  Until then the IMP is just one of many "dime a dozen" hopefuls, and Peterson is just another JA27 (not a bad thing, mind you).

We can all be hopeful though!  They certainly appear to have the "it" factor so far!

We did acquire Peterson in trade along with moving up in the global draft.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 19, 2025, 05:59:36 AMAny/all of the rookies, or guys who were mostly on PR in '24, will be "willing to return to the PR".  If they're not, then they'll get Gaitor'd and Rutledge'd.

For example, Vanterpool, Randolph and Peterson should all have no expectations to be on AR.  And the fact that we've been practicing with Wallace at LG not only hints that we'll go with 3 NAT OL (and thus Vatnerpool to PR), but we're almost certainly ARing (and probably starting!) Cooley.

Again, let's not get ahead of ourselves on all of these "expected PR" guys being on the PR.  That's the normal dev route.  No one should get a big head.  If nothing else they've all seen how easy it is to get on the AR as ratios / IRs dictate.

Peterson won't be bumped to PR whether Cooley is added or not. The conversation is about adding depth at RB, regardless of who starts.

Normally 2nd year players that didn't play much are willing to return to PR. That's not always true but teams seem to be pushing some to 1 game IR with higher SMS in 2025.

We should see the depth chart late today or early tomorrow.

Doesn't matter now, but Re Collaros suspension for not answering a phone call....

When I get a call on my cell phone.. it announces who is calling.

Why didn't the drug testing callers phone do that?

Of course he would have immediately answered.

Quote from: markf on June 19, 2025, 01:37:03 PMDoesn't matter now, but Re Collaros suspension for not answering a phone call....

When I get a call on my cell phone.. it announces who is calling.

Why didn't the drug testing callers phone do that?

Of course he would have immediately answered.

It could also say unknown number or the name of the lab or company or person that Zach doesn't know.

There are times when I get 4-5 random calls a day. Some are automated messages, some in other languages, some just random surveys. I don't listen to any of their messages before deleting.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 18, 2025, 07:44:19 PMGetting Woods onto the AR is another tough choice regarding choosing the DI's. I don't think I ever expected to have both import DT's active at the same time. I'd like to but it's not easy. It seemed depth at DE would be the 1st choice. That meant seeing Person added.

Since Wood is still not healthy that's a question for another day. I don't think adding Person this week falls into the choices that will be made.

The injury to Oliveria and what we do about it is where choices will be made.

Would it work to replace Ayers at DE with Bailey (our global)? I thought he did a great job this preseason. Maybe that's the play to get Woods into the game?

Quote from: LXTSN on June 19, 2025, 01:55:01 PMWould it work to replace Ayers at DE with Bailey (our global)? I thought he did a great job this preseason. Maybe that's the play to get Woods into the game?

Yes and a definite possibility but it still can't be a two for one. So in practice it would like something like this, (if, theoretically, you were trying to get Woods on, not saying we should, just showing a likely possible move to make it happen):

Ayers off, Bailey on  (DE/LB switch)
Kornelson off, Woods on (DT switch)

Quote from: LXTSN on June 19, 2025, 01:55:01 PMWould it work to replace Ayers at DE with Bailey (our global)? I thought he did a great job this preseason. Maybe that's the play to get Woods into the game?

A global doesn't have to replace an import. The 2nd global comes at the cost of a Canadian. So we could add Bailey and still keep Ayers on the AR. Ayers is not a DE but as depth could be part of a 34 formation when needed.

The problem is that he's one of the candidates to remove if we want to DI Cooley. There are several options and we're just debating which would be the most beneficial.

Yes, Ayers could be removed to get Woods on the roster but he's not healthy yet so that's moot at the moment.  IMO the choice might be to add Person at DE if Ayers is removed. That help at DE would be more valuable against a QB like Rourke maintaining outside pressure and contain.

Another possible roster change is adding Hagerty. He's a very good ST player and seems to be healthy again. The catch is that we might be adding the 2nd global in Bailey. If that doesn't happen then Hagerty could replace Novak. Hagerty has 46 games CFL experience compared to 1 for Novak.

We're overloaded at LB and thinner at DB. However our ST's played very well and I'm not sure if we want or intend to make any change regardless of a new addition. I'm also not sure if Novak played on any of the ST teams or what his role was specifically.

Novak seems to have some talent and skill we liked when drafted.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 19, 2025, 05:59:36 AMAny/all of the rookies, or guys who were mostly on PR in '24, will be "willing to return to the PR".  If they're not, then they'll get Gaitor'd and Rutledge'd.

For example, Vanterpool, Randolph and Peterson should all have no expectations to be on AR.  And the fact that we've been practicing with Wallace at LG not only hints that we'll go with 3 NAT OL (and thus Vatnerpool to PR), but we're almost certainly ARing (and probably starting!) Cooley.

Again, let's not get ahead of ourselves on all of these "expected PR" guys being on the PR.  That's the normal dev route.  No one should get a big head.  If nothing else they've all seen how easy it is to get on the AR as ratios / IRs dictate.

If they switch out Vanterpool for Wallace they'd probably 1 game him, he's in his second season with the team and sending him back to the PR would send a negative message after putting in a superb effort in game #1. I agree any rookie, draft pick or bubble player should accept PR assignment without question, including Peterson if necessary, most are still new to the game and have much to learn and adapt.

Quote from: Jesse on June 19, 2025, 01:41:50 PMIt could also say unknown number or the name of the lab or company or person that Zach doesn't know.

There are times when I get 4-5 random calls a day. Some are automated messages, some in other languages, some just random surveys. I don't listen to any of their messages before deleting.

Yah it isn't going to say "CFL drug testing line calling.."

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 19, 2025, 03:27:45 PMAnother possible roster change is adding Hagerty. He's a very good ST player and seems to be healthy again. The catch is that we might be adding the 2nd global in Bailey. If that doesn't happen then Hagerty could replace Novak. Hagerty has 46 games CFL experience compared to 1 for Novak.

We're overloaded at LB and thinner at DB. However our ST's played very well and I'm not sure if we want or intend to make any change regardless of a new addition. I'm also not sure if Novak played on any of the ST teams or what his role was specifically.

Novak seems to have some talent and skill we liked when drafted.

I heard that Hagerty just started running yesterday, so he still might be a few weeks away from full participation.

If Novak is rostered, no doubt he's playing ST, but most likely a temp situation until Hagerty or Kelly come back.  Makonzo might be gone for half a season or more, which likely favours Shay's situation more than anyone else.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 19, 2025, 05:09:55 PMI heard that Hagerty just started running yesterday, so he still might be a few weeks away from full participation.

If Novak is rostered, no doubt he's playing ST, but most likely a temp situation until Hagerty or Kelly come back.  Makonzo might be gone for half a season or more, which likely favours Shay's situation more than anyone else.

If Clercius is out too, we pretty mush have no choice but to put Hagerty in. We were already talking about potentially 3 NAT WRs to solve ratio.

Quote from: Jesse on June 19, 2025, 05:18:01 PMIf Clercius is out too, we pretty mush have no choice but to put Hagerty in. We were already talking about potentially 3 NAT WRs to solve ratio.

We'd put in Cobb. At least he's a receiver and not a DB / ST player.

from Farhan:

Another day of no practice for Nathan Rourke. Certainly hard to imagine a path to him playing on Sat. Masoli with all the first team reps.
No Berryhill Thurs after injuring quad yesterday. J Jackson taking 1st team reps.
Tuehema returns to lineup after suspension.

Quote from: The Zipp on June 19, 2025, 05:03:58 PMYah it isn't going to say "CFL drug testing line calling.."

 That's exactly what it should say.

Quote from: markf on June 19, 2025, 08:46:04 PMThat's exactly what it should say.

It doesn't have to say that. It only has to reference the CFL or CFLPA. Anyway, what's done is done.

Quote from: markf on June 19, 2025, 08:46:04 PMThat's exactly what it should say.

It's going to be whatever company the league hired to this. They're not a part of the CFL.

It should say "Pick up the phone Zachy. It's important".

Anything less is unacceptable.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on June 20, 2025, 12:19:56 AMIt should say "Pick up the phone Zachy. It's important".

Anything less is unacceptable.

That's why I always have said: call. the. wife.  Wives love checking calls / messages (at least mine does!), and trust me, when the phone says WIFE you pick that thing up.  8)  8)  8)

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 19, 2025, 05:00:11 PMIf they switch out Vanterpool for Wallace they'd probably 1 game him, he's in his second season with the team and sending him back to the PR would send a negative message after putting in a superb effort in game #1. I agree any rookie, draft pick or bubble player should accept PR assignment without question, including Peterson if necessary, most are still new to the game and have much to learn and adapt.

It really wouldn't.  I think all WFC players know they may sit on PR for some games and it's not necessarily that they suck.  Sometimes it's ratio, sometimes it's injuries, sometimes it's just we have so many great players.

Vanterpool as a 2nd year IMP should expect absolutely nothing.  On the progression/seniority ladder he's still behind Randolph, who has a ton more live game snaps under his belt, and is arguably better and certainly more versatile.

I don't think Mafia thinks twice before PRing him, if that's what's required.  How many IMP OL have we had pass through the last decade that just languished on PR.  Some never dressing, let alone starting, let alone starting regularly!

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 19, 2025, 03:27:45 PMAnother possible roster change is adding Hagerty. He's a very good ST player and seems to be healthy again. The catch is that we might be adding the 2nd global in Bailey. If that doesn't happen then Hagerty could replace Novak. Hagerty has 46 games CFL experience compared to 1 for Novak.

I'm a bit baffled.  Does Mafia really pick the roster based on "great ST player!"?  I was of the mind that all those years we really ever only rostered one "great ST player" for his ST skills alone: Mike Miller.

Are you saying there's a 2nd, 3rd, 4th STer who really isn't great on D or O but we really really want to AR him just to beef up ST?  And we'd sacrifice dressing a much better player on O or D because he isn't as good at ST?

A great example is Ayers.  Apparently great at ST, but so-so on D... Let's say we really wanted/needed Cooley as a DI to backup Peterson; are you really saying we say "nah, need to dress Ayers or our ST will suck"?  Isn't it more important to get the needed / BAP onto the AR for the "real teams" even if it "weakens" the ST unit?

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 19, 2025, 01:07:14 PMWe did acquire Peterson in trade along with moving up in the global draft.

Oh ok, but CFL stats show him as having never dressed for a game before WPG, so wouldn't Peterson still be a "rookie" then?

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 20, 2025, 10:17:25 AMOh ok, but CFL stats show him as having never dressed for a game before WPG, so wouldn't Peterson still be a "rookie" then?

He would have attended Hamilton's training camp last year, played in pre-season games. Does that count?

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 20, 2025, 10:16:30 AMI'm a bit baffled.  Does Mafia really pick the roster based on "great ST player!"?  I was of the mind that all those years we really ever only rostered one "great ST player" for his ST skills alone: Mike Miller.

Are you saying there's a 2nd, 3rd, 4th STer who really isn't great on D or O but we really really want to AR him just to beef up ST?  And we'd sacrifice dressing a much better player on O or D because he isn't as good at ST?

A great example is Ayers.  Apparently great at ST, but so-so on D... Let's say we really wanted/needed Cooley as a DI to backup Peterson; are you really saying we say "nah, need to dress Ayers or our ST will suck"?  Isn't it more important to get the needed / BAP onto the AR for the "real teams" even if it "weakens" the ST unit?

I'm saying that Novak as a rookie has less value at the moment than Hagerty might have. We're also very deep at LB but a little thin at DB. So Hagerty has more versatility.

Ayers is not a Canadian and he could very well be next up at WIL in game if Wilson gets injured.  Before TC many thought he'd be fighting to be the starter.

So you're comparing apples to apples. Ayers is more than just a very good ST player.

I've repeatedly mentioned that Cooley as just a DI is problematic. At the moment he isn't versatile. If he's on the roster then they should expect him to start. As a back up his use would be very limited requiring an import on offence to come out for him to be on the field. That would be Sterns. If they intend for him to start.

IMO that would be a choice to remove Vanterpool off the roster. to allow that to happen.  Hard to say what Cooley could do. He might be the next great RB or he may have just been a flash in the pan in pre-season. At least Peterson showed a lot in his 1st game but that's a small sample too. Passport is everything.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 20, 2025, 10:16:30 AMI'm a bit baffled.  Does Mafia really pick the roster based on "great ST player!"?  I was of the mind that all those years we really ever only rostered one "great ST player" for his ST skills alone: Mike Miller.

Are you saying there's a 2nd, 3rd, 4th STer who really isn't great on D or O but we really really want to AR him just to beef up ST?  And we'd sacrifice dressing a much better player on O or D because he isn't as good at ST?

A great example is Ayers.  Apparently great at ST, but so-so on D... Let's say we really wanted/needed Cooley as a DI to backup Peterson; are you really saying we say "nah, need to dress Ayers or our ST will suck"?  Isn't it more important to get the needed / BAP onto the AR for the "real teams" even if it "weakens" the ST unit?

Take this with an extra grain of salt because this is even more opinion based than usual:

It depends on the year and to some degree, the opponent. Ayers is one of the most athletic players we've got and O'Shea particularly likes him because he's also one of the toughest. He really is a monster on the teams and will run through (literally) a player-like brick wall. He did it routinely last year and has the concussions to prove it.

They also gave him some WILL reps later in the season. He started there at an away game in Edmonton and maybe one other. Results were mixed and he didn't play there after. Draw whatever conclusions you like but this year he's penciled in as a DE (after we drafted Canadian linebackers) and I think the coaching staff is really trying to find a place he can excel for all the reasons as stated above.

That said, they're also trying to find him a spot because it's very hard to stay on the roster as a primarily American special teams player (who isn't kicking the ball) and we should be aware that that's what he is right now. When we need the roster spot for Cooley, for example, it makes it hard for him to stay rostered (particularly when we're only starting 7 Canadians). If Kramdi goes down we can only fill with an American probably, so same thing.

A guy like Ayers would be very valuable against Tre Ford next Thursday and so if he comes off for Cooley this week I'd expect him back on somehow someway against Edmonton (that's the part about where there's a good opponent fit).

Summary: He's in a weird spot. He's an interesting player who brings a lot but hasn't found a home anywhere on the actual defense which is certainly a big hit to his value on game day. Another reason why I don't really like the ratio rules. If he was Canadian he'd looking at a long career or if more Americans could play he'd have no trouble staying on the roster but he's neither of those things and so it's going to be tough if he can't find a position.

Jordan Younger interview was interesting.

"Stay ahead of the curve"

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on June 20, 2025, 02:05:23 PMTake this with an extra grain of salt because this is even more opinion based than usual:

It depends on the year and to some degree, the opponent. Ayers is one of the most athletic players we've got and O'Shea particularly likes him because he's also one of the toughest. He really is a monster on the teams and will run through (literally) a player-like brick wall. He did it routinely last year and has the concussions to prove it.

They also gave him some WILL reps later in the season. He started there at an away game in Edmonton and maybe one other. Results were mixed and he didn't play there after. Draw whatever conclusions you like but this year he's penciled in as a DE (after we drafted Canadian linebackers) and I think the coaching staff is really trying to find a place he can excel for all the reasons as stated above.

That said, they're also trying to find him a spot because it's very hard to stay on the roster as a primarily American special teams player (who isn't kicking the ball) and we should be aware that that's what he is right now. When we need the roster spot for Cooley, for example, it makes it hard for him to stay rostered (particularly when we're only starting 7 Canadians). If Kramdi goes down we can only fill with an American probably, so same thing.

A guy like Ayers would be very valuable against Tre Ford next Thursday and so if he comes off for Cooley this week I'd expect him back on somehow someway against Edmonton (that's the part about where there's a good opponent fit).

Summary: He's in a weird spot. He's an interesting player who brings a lot but hasn't found a home anywhere on the actual defense which is certainly a big hit to his value on game day. Another reason why I don't really like the ratio rules. If he was Canadian he'd looking at a long career or if more Americans could play he'd have no trouble staying on the roster but he's neither of those things and so it's going to be tough if he can't find a position.

Just to further this the discovery of Ayers is the reason Cole is no longer a Bomber, they were both Swiss Army Knife players, but Ayers has greater potential as a WIL.

As for Kramdi's backup, for now Griffin, but expect 2nd round draft pick Smith to move in that direction as he's better suited to DB than he is LB.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 20, 2025, 04:45:15 PMJust to further this the discovery of Ayers is the reason Cole is no longer a Bomber, they were both Swiss Army Knife players, but Ayers has greater potential as a WIL.

As for Kramdi's backup, for now Griffin, but expect 2nd round draft pick Smith to move in that direction as he's better suited to DB than he is LB.

I agree about the depth at SAM both short and long term. In at least the 1st half of 2025 ratio comes into play. If Kramdi gets hurt we'd have to switch Cooley to a DI so Griffin could play at SAM.

I'm not sure that switching DI's can happen in game, so it probably means Hallett has to play or 2 Canadian DT's?

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 20, 2025, 07:27:59 PMI'm not sure that switching DI's can happen in game, so it probably means Hallett has to play or 2 Canadian DT's?

I'm almost positive the ratio is set in stone on each side (O vs D) at game start (well, 30 min or 24 hours before).

So your Cooley / Kramdi / Griffin example is not legal.  If Griffin takes over for injured Kramdi, you have to add that extra NAT on D.  Yes, that's like Hallett.  Though we could also put Lawson in the 2nd DT spot.