As per bluebombers.com
Thorne (6'2", 207#) played collegiately at Michigan & Auburn, and was invited to camp with the Cincinatti Bengals in 2025.
I didn't think Echols would be returning but a bit surprised about Parker being released. That may be an SMS issue with current demands and / or injury history?
There are few other players I'd think will be released in a similar fashion. The question is why now two days before Christmas? Hopefully this means we have a clearer picture about Holm re-signing as well as Houston and Bonds status. Noting I didn't think Bonds would be back or even available but OTOH I didn't think Parker would released now!!
Thanks to Parker for his time in Winnipeg. He'll probably get at least a TC invite elsewhere.
Thorne seems like an exciting prospect.
I really liked Parker in his first season. I thought he was going to be really good but the injury seemed to derail him a bit. I hope he's able to catch on somewhere else.
Thorne was recently added to our neg list. Most of the QB's on our list were added between August and October of this year. Some are interesting but who might be interested in coming to the CFL in 2026 is TBD.
Sad to see Parker go but makes sense too much $ for a good but not great player. Worth it to develop a new face. I liked him and he played well last year. He will be employed but will take a pay cut.
Pocket passer, seems to have a decent arm and he's pretty good at leading his receivers but not beloved in Auburn Alabama from the comments below. Watch both videos.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 23, 2025, 09:11:56 PMas well as Houston and Bonds status. Noting I didn't think Bonds would be back or even available but OTOH I didn't think Parker would released now!!
Why wouldn't Bonds be back? He's very cheap and seems to FIFO and seems to improve every year. The injury sucks real bad though. I would think Bonds could easily reach Parker level, and maybe beyond.
Bonds>Lawson, right now that's for sure.
Blue Bombers transactions
WINNIPEG, MB., December 23, 2025 – The Winnipeg Blue Bombers today announce the club has signed American quarterback Payton Thorne.
Thorne (6-2, 207, Auburn; born: June 26, 2001, in Naperville, IL.) signs with the Bombers after attending camp with the Cincinnati Bengals this season, and a five-year collegiate career with Michigan State (2019-2022) and Auburn (2023-2024).
Thorne signed as an undrafted free agent with the Cincinnati Bengals after being unselected in the 2025 NFL Draft. He appeared in the final preseason game of 2025 and threw for 41 yards on four completions in a loss to the Indianapolis Colts.
Thorne spent three seasons at Michigan State before transferring to Auburn. At Auburn he threw for 4,468 yards and 37 touchdowns and rushed for 798 yards and five touchdowns in 22 starts. During his college career he recorded 10,961 passing yards and 86 touchdowns, along with 1,068 rushing yards and 11 rushing touchdowns in 53 games (46 starts).
The club has also released American defensive back Jamal Parker and American receiver Cam Echols.
Quote from: Tecno on December 24, 2025, 02:39:26 AMWhy wouldn't Bonds be back? He's very cheap and seems to FIFO and seems to improve every year. The injury sucks real bad though. I would think Bonds could easily reach Parker level, and maybe beyond.
Bonds>Lawson, right now that's for sure.
I thought that because of the season ending injury and that he wouldn't be available until mid season. We have several other options although 2 of them are also potential free agents.
Bonds may have some upside but we'll see and have a bunch of rookies looking to win spots on AR or PR. Bonds won't necessarily continue on an ELC since he's completed his 1st contract and is a potential free agent.
Bonds got injured early in August and missed 10 games. Do we know his recovery status? I was under the impression his knee injury was very serious and it take an extended recovery time.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 24, 2025, 01:15:39 PMBonds may have some upside but we'll see and have a bunch of rookies looking to win spots on AR or PR. Bonds won't necessarily continue on an ELC since he's completed his 1st contract and is a potential free agent.
Right, but he hasn't really proven much yet -- the only ones paying attention to him are us. And now he has an injury history. As such I doubt he fetches much of a bump above ELC. We'd offer him what we offer any other non-star(yet) in their first FA.
My hunch is he's back, or he gets a call mid-year when his knee is healed.
Quote from: Tecno on December 25, 2025, 03:48:12 AMRight, but he hasn't really proven much yet -- the only ones paying attention to him are us. And now he has an injury history. As such I doubt he fetches much of a bump above ELC. We'd offer him what we offer any other non-star(yet) in their first FA.
My hunch is he's back, or he gets a call mid-year when his knee is healed.
All of that may be true. It's just my opinion at the moment. Noting that the Lions picked up Bridges after we released him. Assessment and reassessment is happening all the time. Bombers picked by Dawson as a replacement.
Quote from: Tecno on December 25, 2025, 03:48:12 AMRight, but he hasn't really proven much yet -- the only ones paying attention to him are us. And now he has an injury history. As such I doubt he fetches much of a bump above ELC. We'd offer him what we offer any other non-star(yet) in their first FA.
My hunch is he's back, or he gets a call mid-year when his knee is healed.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 25, 2025, 01:35:04 PMAll of that may be true. It's just my opinion at the moment. Noting that the Lions picked up Bridges after we released him. Assessment and reassessment is happening all the time. Bombers picked by Dawson as a replacement.
I think they give Bonds the same opportunity they gave Parker, the time to recover and come back, if he can't beat out the competition at that time, then they move on from him. Bomber DB's seem to be treasured around the league and usually get picked up, it's like they're running a puppy mill for DB's.
I totally expect Parker to be picked up for his ability, knowledge and experience, I wouldn't be surprised if he's still in the league 4 years from now.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 27, 2025, 05:28:09 PMI think they give Bonds the same opportunity they gave Parker, the time to recover and come back, if he can't beat out the competition at that time, then they move on from him. Bomber DB's seem to be treasured around the league and usually get picked up, it's like they're running a puppy mill for DB's.
I totally expect Parker to be picked up for his ability, knowledge and experience, I wouldn't be surprised if he's still in the league 4 years from now.
Parker was still under contract while Bonds is a potential free agent. As mentioned about other players, I don't see re-signing a player only to add him to the 6 game IR for half of the season. You might do that with a longer term player but not one coming off a 1st ELC contract.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 27, 2025, 07:30:01 PMParker was still under contract while Bonds is a potential free agent. As mentioned about other players, I don't see re-signing a player only to add him to the 6 game IR for half of the season. You might do that with a longer term player but not one coming off a 1st ELC contract.
Probably remains unsigned until healthy then, but at that point I almost expect the Bombers to welcome him back if they have any deficiencies in the secondary at all.
Bonds will be back as long as he is on track on his recovery
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 27, 2025, 07:30:01 PMParker was still under contract while Bonds is a potential free agent. As mentioned about other players, I don't see re-signing a player only to add him to the 6 game IR for half of the season. You might do that with a longer term player but not one coming off a 1st ELC contract.
Parker was a pending free agent. Echols however had a year left on his contract.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 27, 2025, 08:17:39 PMProbably remains unsigned until healthy then, but at that point I almost expect the Bombers to welcome him back if they have any deficiencies in the secondary at all.
Holm, Houston and Lawson are still potential free agents. Griffin as well. It's a question about what happens before he's healthy. Your point about deficiencies is a valid at a point in time may change what happens.
OTOH, maybe we re-sign Holm, Houston and Lawson and find the next Alford before he's healthy.
The state of the rehab to his knee is 1st mitigating question.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 27, 2025, 10:29:14 PMHolm, Houston and Lawson are still potential free agents. Griffin as well. It's a question about what happens before he's healthy. Your point about deficiencies is a valid at a point in time may change what happens.
OTOH, maybe we re-sign Holm, Houston and Lawson and find the next Alford before he's healthy.
The state of the rehab to his knee is 1st mitigating question.
Houston and Lawson will likely sign for whatever is offered, knowing how close they came to the end of their football careers. Holmie might play the "Brady game" and stick them for as much as he can before agreeing to re-sign.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 27, 2025, 11:49:05 PMHouston and Lawson will likely sign for whatever is offered, knowing how close they came to the end of their football careers. Holmie might play the "Brady game" and stick them for as much as he can before agreeing to re-sign.
Are we talking about Cam Lawson? If so, he's already re-signed for 2 years (https://www.bluebombers.com/2025/12/10/blue-bombers-sign-cam-lawson-to-two-year-contract-extension/)
Quote from: the.inkster on December 28, 2025, 02:31:51 AMAre we talking about Cam Lawson? If so, he's already re-signed for 2 years (https://www.bluebombers.com/2025/12/10/blue-bombers-sign-cam-lawson-to-two-year-contract-extension/)
No, there talking about DBs. So this would be Dexter Lawson.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 27, 2025, 11:49:05 PMHolmie might play the "Brady game" and stick them for as much as he can before agreeing to re-sign.
Holm has done very few pressers (I can recall one the last time he re-signed??) but I got the definite impression he's soft spoken and doesn't want to cause trouble or a ruckus, or make a scene.
My guess is he happily takes a very fair offer from KW. KW will pay him fairly as long as some other team isn't desperate for him.
Let's all remember, DBs are always the cheapest lot, and fairly easy to replace. I've learned not to get attached to them, as they cycle through fairly quickly. We've actually been pretty spoiled lately that we've got to know Holm, Nichols, Parker (and even Houston and Nick Taylor) over a longer term. That's not the norm.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 27, 2025, 07:30:01 PMParker was still under contract while Bonds is a potential free agent. As mentioned about other players, I don't see re-signing a player only to add him to the 6 game IR for half of the season.
Why not? It's cheap, wouldn't require any signing bonus, and will be 100% SMS free until he's healed. Then voila, you have a healthy fresh experience DB come labor day right when you're getting creamed with injuries.
$10k above ELC on a 1-year and it's a done deal. Make it so, number one!
Quote from: Pigskin on December 28, 2025, 03:33:43 AMNo, there talking about DBs. So this would be Dexter Lawson.
Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying :)
Quote from: Tecno on December 28, 2025, 03:40:01 AMWhy not? It's cheap, wouldn't require any signing bonus, and will be 100% SMS free until he's healed. Then voila, you have a healthy fresh experience DB come labor day right when you're getting creamed with injuries.
$10k above ELC on a 1-year and it's a done deal. Make it so, number one!
Because then you have a player coming off an injury 6 - 9 games in the season. It's a gamble like bringing in Schoen back only to re-injure and miss the more time. By then we'll have gone through TC and found the next group of DB's going forward on our PR.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 28, 2025, 01:44:59 PMBecause then you have a player coming off an injury 6 - 9 games in the season. It's a gamble like bringing in Schoen back only to re-injure and miss the more time. By then we'll have gone through TC and found the next group of DB's going forward on our PR.
Just curious in a case like Bonds or Schoen who are now FA's, doesn't the team maintain financial obligation to them until they are healed?
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 28, 2025, 02:00:01 PMJust curious in a case like Bonds or Schoen who are now FA's, doesn't the team maintain financial obligation to them until they are healed?
Medical recovery costs are covered IIRC. Beyond that nothing as far as I know unless they are under contract. In those cases they get added to 6 game IR as " injured vet " or some similar designation. If the injury is very long term there might be some sort of buyout as we see in the NFL.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 28, 2025, 05:28:27 PMMedical recovery costs are covered IIRC. Beyond that nothing as far as I know unless they are under contract. In those cases they get added to 6 game IR as " injured vet " or some similar designation. If the injury is very long term there might be some sort of buyout as we see in the NFL.
Rehab is covered by the team, but not living expenses or salary, until the injury has been rehabbed, or I believe a certain time period, maybe 2 years? I think we had an issue with that with Jovan Johnson, didn't we?
So, if a player want to rehab, and wants the costs of that rehab covered, its probably in their best interest to stay local.
Signing a team friendly deal that puts you on the IR to start the season costs the team no $SMS, and is good PR. And, after the rehab is complete, if the player has not gotten up to game speed or recovered to the point of competitive play, but is healed, there is no reason they can't release the player without ever costing the team a single $SMS dollar.
QuoteWhy not? It's cheap, wouldn't require any signing bonus, and will be 100% SMS free until he's healed. Then voila, you have a healthy fresh experience DB come labor day right when you're getting creamed with injuries.
$10k above ELC on a 1-year and it's a done deal. Make it so, number one!
$10k above an ELC is an insult to Holm. Who is by far the best cover DB in the league. Teams avoid throwing his way. I am hoping Walters makes him a fair Nd equitable offer. We shouldn't expect players to play for nothing. I d take Evan holm over any DB in the league, pay the man accordingly.
Quote from: dd on December 28, 2025, 08:45:54 PM$10k above an ELC is an insult to Holm. Who is by far the best cover DB in the league. Teams avoid throwing his way. I am hoping Walters makes him a fair Nd equitable offer. We shouldn't expect players to play for nothing. I d take Evan holm over any DB in the league, pay the man accordingly.
Holm is one of the higher paid DBs in the league. They were talking about Parker and/or Bonds, I think.
Quote from: dd on December 28, 2025, 08:45:54 PM$10k above an ELC is an insult to Holm.
Bonds. Injured-and-still-not-totally-proven Bonds is worth $10-$20 above ELC at this moment.
Holm will be north of $150k.
Quote from: theaardvark on December 28, 2025, 08:08:06 PMRehab is covered by the team, but not living expenses or salary, until the injury has been rehabbed, or I believe a certain time period, maybe 2 years? I think we had an issue with that with Jovan Johnson, didn't we?
So, if a player want to rehab, and wants the costs of that rehab covered, its probably in their best interest to stay local.
Signing a team friendly deal that puts you on the IR to start the season costs the team no $SMS, and is good PR. And, after the rehab is complete, if the player has not gotten up to game speed or recovered to the point of competitive play, but is healed, there is no reason they can't release the player without ever costing the team a single $SMS dollar.
Veteran cut down dates applies. So if a player takes 9 games to be healthy and ready to play then yes there is a cost. Schoen for example. Business is business.
You think cutting Parker created good PR? He's more proven than Bonds and was not currently injured.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 29, 2025, 01:47:38 PMVeteran cut down dates applies. So if a player takes 9 games to be healthy and ready to play then yes there is a cost. Schoen for example. Business is business.
You think cutting Parker created good PR? He's more proven than Bonds and was not currently injured.
They must have seen something in somebody new to cut Parker loose,
Newcomer Micahel Dixon has great DB size at 6'-2" 210 lbs as does Alljah McGhee 6'-2" 195 lbs. They also had late season looks at Ridge Texada and Major Williams another taller than average prospect at 6"-1" 190 lbs.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 29, 2025, 01:47:38 PMVeteran cut down dates applies. So if a player takes 9 games to be healthy and ready to play then yes there is a cost. Schoen for example. Business is business.
You think cutting Parker created good PR? He's more proven than Bonds and was not currently injured.
Cutting Parker now is good PR.
If he's not in the mix for next year, this gives him a chance to catch on elsewhere, and it was probably granted at his request.
Bad PR is holding on to his rights until camp, run him through camp and then cut him before he gets a paycheck.
Quote from: theaardvark on December 29, 2025, 06:15:43 PMCutting Parker now is good PR.
If he's not in the mix for next year, this gives him a chance to catch on elsewhere, and it was probably granted at his request.
Bad PR is holding on to his rights until camp, run him through camp and then cut him before he gets a paycheck.
Yes and no. I've often suggested that players not in the mix for the following season should be released earlier. In that we agree.
OTOH, cutting a veteran is never easy or always popular. He may have asked to be released early if he was advised that no contract would be offered.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 29, 2025, 05:46:38 PMThey must have seen something in somebody new to cut Parker loose,
Newcomer Micahel Dixon has great DB size at 6'-2" 210 lbs as does Alljah McGhee 6'-2" 195 lbs. They also had late season looks at Ridge Texada and Major Williams another taller than average prospect at 6"-1" 190 lbs.
Sure all of those may be true. Injury history and SMS expectations may have come into play. Even age and bigger size may have been factors. I'm neither surprised or disappointed. It's the business nature of the sport.
That said, on my list I have 13 players which I don't think are part of 2026 that could / should be released early. However there is a domino effect where one decision impacts another. Let's use Streveler as the example. He's not under contract, coming off a season ending injury. Probably not going to play again IMO. Is it better to at leave give him the same chance as Parker of just left him become a free agent?
The same question applies to the other veterans on my list. There is no reason to list them but as potential free agents, injury history, SMS hit and succession plans are in play.
A few vets have already been released early. Sankey who nearly immediately signed in Vancouver. Woods released but not yet signed elsewhere.
Every off season I keep tabs to see how accurate my guesstimates were about those I didn't expect to return for various reasons.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 29, 2025, 05:46:38 PMThey must have seen something in somebody new to cut Parker loose,
All the DBs, but especially the CBs, pooped the bed in the ESF. You could argue in the losing GCs too (to a lesser extent). What Calvillo & Alexander did to them the other month was shameful. Sitting there in the stands I was flabbergasted. Half those chuck & pray 60Y bombs should have been INTs if our guys (and our DC(s)) had a clue.
I'm all for finding incremental improvement. Parker is getting old for a DB, has been injured a whack ton, and was
never as good as Houston (for example). Yes, he was solid, and I liked him, but he never solidified his spot like, say, Nichols did.
Quote from: Tecno on December 31, 2025, 06:16:09 AMAll the DBs, but especially the CBs, pooped the bed in the ESF. You could argue in the losing GCs too (to a lesser extent). What Calvillo & Alexander did to them the other month was shameful. Sitting there in the stands I was flabbergasted. Half those chuck & pray 60Y bombs should have been INTs if our guys (and our DC(s)) had a clue.
I'm all for finding incremental improvement. Parker is getting old for a DB, has been injured a whack ton, and was never as good as Houston (for example). Yes, he was solid, and I liked him, but he never solidified his spot like, say, Nichols did.
They handed Parker the Safety job early last season and he dropped the ball, not only did he not do a great job at his own position but the CB's were in disarray, so much so they cut Bridges and switched to rookies.
Quote from: Tecno on December 31, 2025, 06:16:09 AMAll the DBs, but especially the CBs, pooped the bed in the ESF. You could argue in the losing GCs too (to a lesser extent). What Calvillo & Alexander did to them the other month was shameful. Sitting there in the stands I was flabbergasted. Half those chuck & pray 60Y bombs should have been INTs if our guys (and our DC(s)) had a clue.
I'm all for finding incremental improvement. Parker is getting old for a DB, has been injured a whack ton, and was never as good as Houston (for example). Yes, he was solid, and I liked him, but he never solidified his spot like, say, Nichols did.
Agree, other than holm , all should be looking over their shoulder as they aren't nearly good enough and it's good news we re cleaning house and bringing in new bodies
Quote from: dd on December 31, 2025, 06:15:09 PMAgree, other than holm , all should be looking over their shoulder as they aren't nearly good enough and it's good news we re cleaning house and bringing in new bodies
I agree but it's a cart before the horse question. One of the new rookies might be pencilled in as a starter and / or there will be more competition at TC.
Logic suggests they didn't want to re-sign Parker. Whether SMS level had anything to do with this is unknown. I'd think there were a multitude of factors including injury history.
I mentioned it before that although I didn't think Bonds will be back, perhaps he'll be healthy and is pencilled in as the player to beat in TC.
Either way, there is no clear answer to Bonds or Lawson as potential upgrades as both are potential free agents.
I'm ok with their decision but will wait and see how this develops.
You really can't blame DBs for playing badly when opposing quarterbacks have as long as they want to throw the ball.
That's just not how football works no matter if it's high school, the Eastern Final, or week one in the NFL.
Those guys got hung out to dry last year.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on January 01, 2026, 02:16:54 PMYou really can't blame DBs for playing badly when opposing quarterbacks have as long as they want to throw the ball.
That's just not how football works no matter if it's high school, the Eastern Final, or week one in the NFL.
Those guys got hung out to dry last year.
But were somehow still the #1 defence by most statistical categories. It's not quite as dire as you're making it out to be.
If they were hung out to dry, it was by the offence being unable to score and turning the ball over.
Quote from: Jesse on January 01, 2026, 04:47:48 PMBut were somehow still the #1 defence by most statistical categories. It's not quite as dire as you're making it out to be.
If they were hung out to dry, it was by the offence being unable to score and turning the ball over.
Here's hoping O'Shea tells Younger to use the 3 man rush sparingly this year and not rely on it as the standard set, especially against smarter QB's.
Noticing that O-linemen are being heavily recruited but not much activity on the D-line yet, looks like they're either standing pat with incumbents or targeting FA to improve that group.
Quote from: Jesse on January 01, 2026, 04:47:48 PMBut were somehow still the #1 defence by most statistical categories. It's not quite as dire as you're making it out to be.
If they were hung out to dry, it was by the offence being unable to score and turning the ball over.
Quote from: Jesse on January 01, 2026, 04:47:48 PMBut were somehow still the #1 defence by most statistical categories. It's not quite as dire as you're making it out to be.
If they were hung out to dry, it was by the offence being unable to score and turning the ball over.
Stats can be deceiving. I don't think any knowledge fan or otherwise would suggest the Bombers had a top defense last year.
That style of defense failed them often against the better teams, including the east final. It generated very few turnovers. It simultaneously put the defensive line in poor positiona and the defensive backs in tough spots.
No legitimately good defense has ever operated the way we did last year.
If you can't pressure the quarterback you can't win. Find me a defensive coach who will tell you otherwise. It was blizzaro world on that side of the ball last year and it ended up, rightfully so, being shredded when it mattered most. It will every time.
Is there a database or source for blitzing stats for the CFL?
Or does anyone know how often the Bombers D blitzed?
Seems relevant in a discussion about their d line strategy.
(NFL probably has stats on what kind of socks, and underwear players wear)
There probably is a blitz rate percentage somewhere although I wouldn't know. Maybe Stat Junkie would.
Pressure rate is better. After all, poorly executed blitzes are just as ineffective. I don't really care how we get pressure (ideally through a good front four like most of the dominate defenses throughout football history) but failing that, and we failed really spectacularly at it last year, it has to come from somewhere or you really don't have a chance.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on January 01, 2026, 07:56:52 PMNo legitimately good defense has ever operated the way we did last year.
I'm all for thinking outside the box and trying new things. As such I'm fine with the all-cover no-rush experiment. However, clearly it needs tweaking as it failed badly against MTL and SSK last season.
I could also say that "no legitimately good offense has ever operated the way" SSK did last year. 3-4 starting NAT RECs at times, and mostly bad ones at that. 4 IMP OL at times. Mostly-short game.
If I told you in 2022 that this was going to be SSK's road to success, you would have said no way.
Hey, what if instead of going straight 4 man DL in '26, we double down and rush 2, 1 or 0? We could basically run a zone AND man coverage at the same time. We instantly negate the value of a team having 5 OL on the field.
Just once in '25 I would have liked to see us bring only 2 pass rushers. Just to see what would happen.
Quote from: markf on January 02, 2026, 01:23:37 AM(NFL probably has stats on what kind of socks, and underwear players wear)
What's the over/under on boxers vs briefs?
Quote from: Tecno on January 02, 2026, 09:05:20 AMI'm all for thinking outside the box and trying new things. As such I'm fine with the all-cover no-rush experiment. However, clearly it needs tweaking as it failed badly against MTL and SSK last season.
I could also say that "no legitimately good offense has ever operated the way" SSK did last year. 3-4 starting NAT RECs at times, and mostly bad ones at that. 4 IMP OL at times. Mostly-short game.
If I told you in 2022 that this was going to be SSK's road to success, you would have said no way.
Hey, what if instead of going straight 4 man DL in '26, we double down and rush 2, 1 or 0? We could basically run a zone AND man coverage at the same time. We instantly negate the value of a team having 5 OL on the field.
Just once in '25 I would have liked to see us bring only 2 pass rushers. Just to see what would happen.
Can't be that bad
"The 3-4 Defense has stretched across pro and college football.
Between two coaches running the 3-4, 9 College football national championships have been won using a version of this defense since 2005. In the NFL, 7 Super Bowls have been won in that time frame from the same coaching tree.
That's 16 major championships from 3 coaches, all coming from the same 3-4 coaching tree. Belichick, Saban, and Smart all use a version of the 3-4 "
The thing I recall is that our blitzing has not been effective. Starting with Bighill... who seemed to accomplish very little when he blitzed. Maybe I have that wrong, don't know.
Don't know if that's player related or if we don't disguise the blitz very well.
I'd be surprised if they stop using it cause they probably just look at the defensive statistics for the team and think, it's a ok. And I thought they had Willie doing contain more than actually trying to get to the qb. Again could easily be wrong
3-4 defenses that are effective still generate pressure. Lots of it.
Fact: No Super Bowl champion since 2005 has won without generating pressure at an above-average rate.
Find me one. It doesn't matter what type of front you play, what matters is you attack the quarterback and make him play faster than he wants to. No one who follows football should be able to disagree with this. It's fundamental and it's plainly true.
I think the 3/4 defense can work, but we have to do a much better job of disguising which lb is rushing. I agree pressure is the key and we need to upgrade our dline as many have pointed out
I'm sorry, my understanding is limited (ask most here), but isn't the 3-4 concept one that increases DB's and reduces DL in an attempt to cover receivers better to allow the DL time to get to the QB, correct?
Weakness is if the DB's cannot cover all rec's and a QB gets the ball out quick.
The twist is bringing extra LB/DB on a blitz.
I guess if the package is well coached and manned by talented players, it is most effective?
Like any set, it needs execution and talent to succed?
Quote from: theaardvark on January 03, 2026, 04:24:24 AMI'm sorry, my understanding is limited (ask most here), but isn't the 3-4 concept one that increases DB's and reduces DL in an attempt to cover receivers better to allow the DL time to get to the QB, correct?
Weakness is if the DB's cannot cover all rec's and a QB gets the ball out quick.
The twist is bringing extra LB/DB on a blitz.
I guess if the package is well coached and manned by talented players, it is most effective?
Like any set, it needs execution and talent to succed?
The 4 stands for 4 LB's instead of 3 and 3 DL instead of 4. That said the 4th LB could be someone that could be a good coverage player as well as someone strong at the LOS etc.
Think of the days when we had T. Jones, J. West, G. Battle and P. Randolph. Offences never knew which LB ( or more ) might be added to rushing the QB. Deception is problem for an offence.
In theory a 34 is more vulnerable to the run and better against the pass. It does take very talented players to do that well.
As players in general have become more talented and athletic, it's not that uncommon to see that used more in the CFL.
Woodbey for example seemed to be a very good addition to that type of mix. He's defined as a LB but title don't mean what they used to mean.
Our problem was that our DL were not exceptional and the strategy used not that effective. That put the pass coverage out to dry too often.
Quote from: markf on January 03, 2026, 12:46:37 AMThe thing I recall is that our blitzing has not been effective. Starting with Bighill... who seemed to accomplish very little when he blitzed. Maybe I have that wrong, don't know.
Don't know if that's player related or if we don't disguise the blitz very well.
You're not wrong. Our blitzing has been bad since probably 2023. Certainly since 2024. It got so bad in '25 that we rarely even tried.
And if you're doing a 3 man DL, bringing "1 more" isn't even a blitz and shouldn't even count. You need to bring +2 or +3 to get a "real" blitz.
Sometimes we got somewhere bringing the house, but that's about it.
It's all completely pointless until we get 1-2 top-3 monster DTs. And that will cost big money. So there's a reasonable chance we just stick with the '25 D scheme into '26.
John Hodge interviews new Bomber QB Payton Thorne, seems like a smart guy, always a good sign when a QB's dad is also a professional football coach.