Mock draft suggests we draft a punter and a DL. Since we only have 1 global on the current roster, both should make the PR. Teams don't seem to add a couple of extra that weren't drafted to create some competition.
10:00 am ET.
Really curious to see if any team drafts the QB on the list of top players. There isn't really any ratio advantage so he'd have to show something that impressed somebody. It would be one way to fill the global PR requirement I suppose.
6 of out 1st 10 picks are punters or kickers ( again ). It's the best use on the roster IMO.
So we drafted a DL and a punter.
Draft compete. 10 punters or kickers selected out of 18. No surprise there. selection order nothing like the mock draft though. lol
The DL sounds interesting, a punter in the Glo draft ad a P/K in the Nat draft. Never hurts to have something in the pipeline.
Quote from: theaardvark on April 29, 2026, 05:38:40 PMThe DL sounds interesting, a punter in the Glo draft ad a P/K in the Nat draft. Never hurts to have something in the pipeline.
I can see the global punter moved to PR as a development player with the required allocations. The Canadian is another issue. I can't see him also on the PR and it doesn't appear he has another year of school? Maybe he " retires " so we can retain his rights for 2027 but he may not accept that.
The DL makes sense as a rotational player behind Munier-Bailey if he's injured or not playing well.
We drafted a DL last year and he never saw the field.
The Finnish guy isn't a bad choice. Least he's played down in the NCAA as a bit of rotional player. Bit older so he probably is what he is but worth a look anyway and the roster rules certainly give him more of a chance than many, at a position where he may be able to contribute a bit.
Probably think of him as a 7th round pick or so if he were Canadian.
Vesterinen 6'3" 282, he's more of a DT then a DE.
Quote from: Pigskin on April 29, 2026, 05:57:21 PMWe drafted a DL last year and he never saw the field.
No kidding. He had high praise from O'Shea which made it more of a surprise. Our Canadian LB's saw the field on ST's but not on defence.
I'd like to see the newbies all get more work when opportunity happens.
This is the way of MOS.
When they switched GLOB from 2-must-dress to 1-must-dress it kind of neutered the whole program. It's basically irrelevant now. If it was still 2-must-dress I'd be a lot more excited about having a GLOB DT as that would be great for rotation if they guy can play.
But as of today the dude has to prove more valuable than the last STer on the AR (say, Ball?). Is that the case? History says no.
Quote from: Tecno on April 30, 2026, 07:26:54 AMWhen they switched GLOB from 2-must-dress to 1-must-dress it kind of neutered the whole program. It's basically irrelevant now. If it was still 2-must-dress I'd be a lot more excited about having a GLOB DT as that would be great for rotation if they guy can play.
But as of today the dude has to prove more valuable than the last STer on the AR (say, Ball?). Is that the case? History says no.
There are several issues. We only have 1 global on the roster at the moment. Of the 2 we drafted, I believe one has an NFL mini camp invite. I expect the punter to end up on the PR, but we have no competition. Maybe we sign one or two that weren't drafted.
I don't expect any 2nd global on the AR. It's already going to be complicated getting Daniels on the AR. Best guess is that one of Kelly or Ball is bumped. Maybe Novak.
Vesterinen seems like a legit prospect. Another guy invited to a NFL min-camp.
They should expand the roster by 2. 1 Current year GBL DP, and one Current year NAT DP. Would add only a tiny amount to the payroll (both would be ELC) yet give these fringe players with upside a chance to develop a year, and be valuable backups / ST contributors.
Quote from: theaardvark on April 30, 2026, 04:38:03 PMThey should expand the roster by 2. 1 GBL, and one Current year NAT DP.
We've seldom had 2 global players that are good enough to make the roster at the same time. Our punter is a default choice to meet the current minimum. He's progressing and Canadian choices have not proven better.
In 2026 we MIGHT see Munier-Bailey become the 2nd full time global. That has more to do with not having a roster spot for a DI to fill that role which might be filled soon by Gathouth.
I'm still proposing the global category is replaced / folded into the roster by 2 more DI's. If a global beats out an American so be it.
Honestly not sure many would win against ANY competition. Right now there is none.
Increasing the roster size may or may not be a good idea. Roster size, ratio and roles for more players is complicated.
Quote from: theaardvark on April 30, 2026, 04:38:03 PMThey should expand the roster by 2. 1 Current year GBL DP, and one Current year NAT DP. Would add only a tiny amount to the payroll (both would be ELC) yet give these fringe players with upside a chance to develop a year, and be valuable backups / ST contributors.
As far as I understand it, they have raised the roster by two. There are 2 additional inactive roster players who are paid but ineligible to play.
Quote from: Jesse on April 30, 2026, 04:52:50 PMAs far as I understand it, they have raised the roster by two. There are 2 additional inactive roster players who are paid but ineligible to play.
When did they do that? News to me. What is the point of having them inactive if they receiver full pay checks?
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 30, 2026, 04:53:35 PMWhen did they do that? News to me. What is the point of having them inactive if they receiver full pay checks?
The point is to have to more people paid. It's something the union fought for. Let me see if I can find the article. It's was on 3down as a part of what the union got out of these play-off changes.
tarting immediately, each franchise will have the ability to designate up to two players on a reserve roster each week with no changes to the ratio or roster composition, creating 18 additional fully-paid jobs. Practice roster sizes have been increased by two, with a Canadian filling one of those new spots. Also, language has been cleaned up when it comes to the injured lists, marketing money, and Nationalized Americans.
https://3downnation.com/2026/04/30/cfl-players-association-record-wins-through-2027-grey-cup-playoff-expansion/
There's actually a lot in this article about new money and positions for players. It seems like the players made a lot of gains this year.
I found this but it's still a little confusing. PR used to be 12 and is now 14? Plus 2 new reserve spots. That sounds like 15 not 18 counting PR and reserve.
For the 2026 CFL season, teams have a 45-man active game roster, featuring a mix of American, National, and Global players, with an additional 18 paid jobs created through two new reserve roster spots per team. Practice rosters have also increased by two spots.
It still doesn't answer why " reserve " spots are paid but not dressed. The ratio or reserve is not specifically addressed which MIGHT prevent them from dressing.
MORE:
Active Gameday Roster: 45 players.
Reserve Roster: Each franchise can now designate up to two players to a reserve roster weekly, adding jobs while maintaining ratio integrity.
Practice Roster: Expanded by two spots, with one of the new spots designated for a Canadian.
Roster Composition: Max 19 Americans (excluding QBs), min 21 Nationals, min 1 Global.
That only adds up to 44 not 45.
I wonder if that part's a typo and it was supposed to read 16. Unless there's two other spots not mentioned that we're forgetting.
Quote from: Jesse on April 30, 2026, 05:36:00 PMI wonder if that part's a typo and it was supposed to read 16. Unless there's two other spots not mentioned that we're forgetting.
Might be that. I don't mind the extra PR spots but it looks like only 1 is Canadian which would make the other an import.
PR spots still cost about $1K per week. That's $36K for the season. 2 inactive players on ELC's @$75K each is $150K.
All in all that's $200K for players not dressing as an increase. It also absorbs a significant portion of the $400K SMS increase.
Noting that I said last year, the best thing to do would be increase the roster size. I didn't mean to make them inactive.
Hmmm. Now I'm wondering WHEN that roster size changed? Was it before or after teams spent it all in free agency? That could create a problem.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 30, 2026, 05:42:19 PMMight be that. I don't mind the extra PR spots but it looks like only 1 is Canadian which would make the other an import.
PR spots still cost about $1K per week. That's $36K for the season. 2 inactive players on ELC's @$75K each is $150K.
All in all that's $200K for players not dressing as an increase. It also absorbs a significant portion of the $400K SMS increase.
Noting that I said last year, the best thing to do would be increase the roster size. I didn't mean to make them inactive.
Hmmm. Now I'm wondering WHEN that roster size changed? Was it before or after teams spent it all in free agency? That could create a problem.
The article talked about the ongoing process. I'm sure teams knew it was in the cards.
I interpret the 18 extra fully-Paid jobs as 2 reserve list players per team x 9 CFL teams.
It looks like there is an extra PR spot this season. In 2025 it was 13 PR spots (10 + 3 globals).
I see the reserve list as a way to deal with GTD situations. The CFL did away with the reserve list a while back when it relaxed the rules surrounding emergency replacements on game day. In 2025, teams could make changes to the 45 man roster up to 30 minutes before game time. The stipulation was replacement players had to come from the practice roster or be signed as a street free agent. Players stashed on the 1-game injured list were not eligible.
I see this as creating a spot for 2 players who were likely going to be stashed on the 1-game list anyway, to be eligible to substitute for GTD player.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on April 30, 2026, 06:10:21 PMI interpret the 18 extra fully-Paid jobs as 2 reserve list players per team x 9 CFL teams.
It looks like there is an extra PR spot this season. In 2025 it was 13 PR spots (10 + 3 globals).
I see the reserve list as a way to deal with GTD situations. The CFL did away with the reserve list a while back when it relaxed the rules surrounding emergency replacements on game day. In 2025, teams could make changes to the 45 man roster up to 30 minutes before game time. The stipulation was replacement players had to come from the practice roster or be signed as a street free agent. Players stashed on the 1-game injured list were not eligible.
I see this as creating a spot for 2 players who were likely going to be stashed on the 1-game list anyway, to be eligible to substitute for GTD player.
This makes way more sense, lol.
Thanks junkie.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on April 30, 2026, 06:10:21 PMI interpret the 18 extra fully-Paid jobs as 2 reserve list players per team x 9 CFL teams.
It looks like there is an extra PR spot this season. In 2025 it was 13 PR spots (10 + 3 globals).
I see the reserve list as a way to deal with GTD situations. The CFL did away with the reserve list a while back when it relaxed the rules surrounding emergency replacements on game day. In 2025, teams could make changes to the 45 man roster up to 30 minutes before game time. The stipulation was replacement players had to come from the practice roster or be signed as a street free agent. Players stashed on the 1-game injured list were not eligible.
I see this as creating a spot for 2 players who were likely going to be stashed on the 1-game list anyway, to be eligible to substitute for GTD player.
Smart man.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 30, 2026, 05:10:28 PMThat only adds up to 44 not 45.
The official game day roster size is 44. Teams can add an extra Canadian or Global player however.
If that 2nd Global sees the field on offence or defence he would need to replace an American or injured National.
I guess the Inactive Roster spot becomes the new "fake IR" allocation.
So now teams can job the system without jobbing the system.
Quote from: theaardvark on April 30, 2026, 07:30:38 PMI guess the Inactive Roster spot becomes the new "fake IR" allocation.
So now teams can job the system without jobbing the system.
I guess so. It gives teams the option. I would rather we just expand the game day roster by two so we're not swapping offensive lineman for defensive lineman and the reverse a few times a season but whatever. Bigger rosters would directly relate to a better on field product.
Quote from: theaardvark on April 30, 2026, 07:30:38 PMI guess the Inactive Roster spot becomes the new "fake IR" allocation.
So now teams can job the system without jobbing the system.
But, like Stats Junkie pointed out, these 2 players would be eligible to be a last minute replacement on game day.
Quote from: gobombersgo on April 30, 2026, 07:40:54 PMBut, like Stats Junkie pointed out, these 2 players would be eligible to be a last minute replacement on game day.
We already had that ability previously but off the PR as late additions.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 30, 2026, 08:00:01 PMWe already had that ability previously but off the PR as late additions.
Yup, but it could be argued that these 2 spots would be filled by more game ready, veteran players than what you would find on the PR.
Quote from: gobombersgo on April 30, 2026, 08:11:48 PMYup, but it could be argued that these 2 spots would be filled by more game ready, veteran players than what you would find on the PR.
That's an even worse resolution. Parking 2 vets that are earning a higher than ELC to NOT DRESS but get paid.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 30, 2026, 09:09:25 PMThat's an even worse resolution. Parking 2 vets that are earning a higher than ELC to NOT DRESS but get paid.
Worse option than what?
Currently they would be on the 1 game injured list and wouldnt be eligible to be a last minute game replacement.
IMO this is just adding transparency to the rosters and is a favorable option for players and the teams.
Reserve lists isn't a new concept. The CFL for the longest time had a 4 man reserve list.
Quote from: gobombersgo on April 30, 2026, 09:18:02 PMWorse option than what?
Currently they would be on the 1 game injured list and wouldnt be eligible to be a last minute game replacement.
IMO this is just adding transparency to the rosters and is a favorable option for players and the teams.
Reserve lists isn't a new concept. The CFL for the longest time had a 4 man reserve list.
Worse than 2 rookies on ELC deals. It's not a resolution, it's a band aid evasion and bad business solution IMO.
Normally ( except last year ) teams don't park veterans on 1 game IR for extended periods unless they are really injured. . Veterans play and when injured are replaced by mostly rookies off the PR. This plan parks healthy players and that makes zero sense.
Again, the issue is paying players to not play ( vets in particular ). Increase the roster by 2 would be better. Add 1 Canadian and 1 more DI. If adding another DI is an issue than add 2 Canadians.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 30, 2026, 09:31:52 PMNormally ( except last year ) teams don't park veterans on 1 game IR for extended periods unless they are really injured. . Veterans play and when injured are replaced by mostly rookies off the PR. This plan parks healthy players and that makes zero sense.
You guys sussed it out pretty well. BinBC, the others are right that this is just a way to legitimize the 1GIR "stashing" everyone does. The stashing seems to be growing in frequency and acceptability. No one batted an eye when even our "always above board" team did it in '25.
I love it. Stashing was just as shady and dumb as the league not enforcing tandem blocking which is clearly forbidden in the rule book. Just come out and legitimize what everyone is doing anyhow! Why the lies and games.
Not many years ago we had the "healthy scratch" (HS), which was basically the exact same thing, but for only 1 player. This "reserve" is better than the HS because I'm assuming you declare it 24-hours before the game (or even mid-week) and NOT 30 mins before the game like the HS was. Gambling cannot maximize when players are stashed less than 24-hours out!
And the talk and worry the last 1-2 seasons of "PR sniping" has been ramping up. We never used to talk about PR sniping 8 years ago. For some reason everyone is now freaked out about it (even though it never happens). This also lets us protect 2 guys from PR sniping -- without "lying" about the 1GIR. This is a definite win.
Quote from: gobombersgo on April 30, 2026, 09:18:02 PMCurrently they would be on the 1 game injured list and wouldnt be eligible to be a last minute game replacement.
That's a great point. I'm not sure we've ever seen as many GTD notes on depth charts as we did in '25. Every game most teams had a GTD (or 2!). It was starting to get silly.
But surely teams will still be able to pull from the PR if a GTD isn't playing? Or will they say all GTDs "no goes" must be replaced from the 2-man reserve? Since you'll never GTD more than 2 players, you can rig your reserve to include those positions... BUT then you lose the "stash" aspect of the reserve should the ones you want to protect play other positions.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 30, 2026, 09:09:25 PMThat's an even worse resolution. Parking 2 vets that are earning a higher than ELC to NOT DRESS but get paid.
No different from the 1 healthy scratch of yore. BUT, you make a great point that this could have SMS repercussions. In the end the stash aspect won't cost any more SMS than the '25 1GIR stash-fest, right? But that was already elevated vs "normal" '23/'24, right? So it depends if you want to be in the '25 model or back to the stingier '24 model. Meh.
You are right that it's the 2 extra PR spots that will be the real SMS eater. That will be ABOVE any reserve stash SMS hits.
AND, unless the league clamps down on the 1GIR-used-as-stash trick, teams will STILL stash on 1GIR!! Yikes.
We (especially you) were wondering this time last year how we'd best use or even out the $400k windfall. This may be the final answer. The stash plus reserve could easily eat up most of it. $160k will go to ELC PR guys (generally considered a "good thing"). The rest will likely go to middling vets getting a bigger payday (AR vs PR $SMS$). The main thing is it wasn't as some feared that it'll all go to the superstars.
For example, the reserve could be a great place to stash JSK if Kyrie/Jones show really good in TC and are healthy that week. (Or vice-versa if it's JSK who wins out.) Or a place to stash Shay if we want to keep him for D dev but he's not as good as, say Ball, at ST.
Quote from: Tecno on May 01, 2026, 07:06:56 AMThat's a great point. I'm not sure we've ever seen as many GTD notes on depth charts as we did in '25. Every game most teams had a GTD (or 2!). It was starting to get silly.
But surely teams will still be able to pull from the PR if a GTD isn't playing? Or will they say all GTDs "no goes" must be replaced from the 2-man reserve? Since you'll never GTD more than 2 players, you can rig your reserve to include those positions... BUT then you lose the "stash" aspect of the reserve should the ones you want to protect play other positions.
I imagine your reserve will change game to game depending on what you might likely need in each game.
Teams will obviously still be able to use the 1GIR and to pay PR players whatever they like.
Quote from: Tecno on May 01, 2026, 07:16:09 AMNo different from the 1 healthy scratch of yore. BUT, you make a great point that this could have SMS repercussions. In the end the stash aspect won't cost any more SMS than the '25 1GIR stash-fest, right? But that was already elevated vs "normal" '23/'24, right? So it depends if you want to be in the '25 model or back to the stingier '24 model. Meh.
You are right that it's the 2 extra PR spots that will be the real SMS eater. That will be ABOVE any reserve stash SMS hits.
AND, unless the league clamps down on the 1GIR-used-as-stash trick, teams will STILL stash on 1GIR!! Yikes.
We (especially you) were wondering this time last year how we'd best use or even out the $400k windfall. This may be the final answer. The stash plus reserve could easily eat up most of it. $160k will go to ELC PR guys (generally considered a "good thing"). The rest will likely go to middling vets getting a bigger payday (AR vs PR $SMS$). The main thing is it wasn't as some feared that it'll all go to the superstars.
For example, the reserve could be a great place to stash JSK if Kyrie/Jones show really good in TC and are healthy that week. (Or vice-versa if it's JSK who wins out.) Or a place to stash Shay if we want to keep him for D dev but he's not as good as, say Ball, at ST.
All the extra money won't go to the expensive vets, but it's still not a good business decision.
If you have your own company, go hire 2 new employees and tell them to sit in the coffee room and do nothing.
The same result could have been accomplished by increasing the roster size. What is the counter argument in doing that? There is a ratio consideration but there are many solutions to that.
Bigger roster creates less need to stash players. Larger PR does that as well to a degree for rookies.
Example: the 2 reserve players are a LB and a WR. You have a player on the AR that is nicked and moved to the 1 game IR but he's an OL. That means you have to move a player from the PR to the AR. Or do you adjust the reserve list by adding an OL in case you need to activate him. So what do you do with the reserve player that is bumped?
The game situation will change week to week depending on who is nicked. A 2 man reserve can't resolve all potential outcomes.
It's great another 2 players are getting paid, but I don't see it as a fixed player situation trying to replace the current need due to injury.
Ultimately we're going to see roster moves every week from each part of the roster. That's not new.
I don't have a problem with that per se but this is an odd attempt to resolve it.
There are 24 starters and several role players on a roster. The odds that 1 of the reserve players is the right player to replace that player is low. If that does happen, then I suppose the nicked player gets moved to the reserve and the reserve player moves to AR.
I think the reality is that an injured player is replaced by a player moving up from the PR. That's where the bulk of depth has always been. Next man up.
If you are getting paid more than ELC and get parked on the inactive list, well...
Quote from: theaardvark on May 01, 2026, 05:50:06 PMIf you are getting paid more than ELC and get parked on the inactive list, well...
That might happen.
Think about a guy like JSK, who we theoretically don't have a roster sport for. What if he spends some games on the inactive list and comes in situationally depending on who the opponent is. Or simply takes the place of one of the 11 different LBs we have due to injury?
Quote from: Jesse on May 01, 2026, 06:37:21 PMThat might happen.
Think about a guy like JSK, who we theoretically don't have a roster sport for. What if he spends some games on the inactive list and comes in situationally depending on who the opponent is. Or simply takes the place of one of the 11 different LBs we have due to injury?
We could be in for some 3-4 Defensive sets where he would fit in. Can you imagine Jones and JSK in the centre behind Ceresna, with Willy J/Other DE/Kramdi/Wilson rushing the edge and stunting/blitzing the gaps on 2nd and long situations? I'm not sure I know how you make that happen on the AR, but I like the sounds of it in certain situations.
Quote from: VictorRomano on May 01, 2026, 07:12:50 PMWe could be in for some 3-4 Defensive sets where he would fit in. Can you imagine Jones and JSK in the centre behind Ceresna, with Willy J/Other DE/Kramdi/Wilson rushing the edge and stunting/blitzing the gaps on 2nd and long situations? I'm not sure I know how you make that happen on the AR, but I like the sounds of it in certain situations.
Every week there are different players injured. If players like Griffin or Woodbey are normally on the AR are nicked then JSK might be added in or vice versa.
It's always a question of who is the healthiest and the best to be on the AR in a given week.
Even Jones is not immune to injury or K. Wilson.. Any combination of talent can be used efficiently.
We're used to the AR being adjusted each week due to someone not near 100%.
Like you said it's just a combination of factors for ratio adjustment which may be forced due to injury or adjusted to match a particular opponent.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 01, 2026, 01:09:46 PMAll the extra money won't go to the expensive vets, but it's still not a good business decision.
The same result could have been accomplished by increasing the roster size. What is the counter argument in doing that? There is a ratio consideration but there are many solutions to that.
It's great another 2 players are getting paid, but I don't see it as a fixed player situation trying to replace the current need due to injury.
Maybe it's confusing because you're not thinking from the perspective of whoever pushed this change. From what I read it sounds like this push was from the CFLPA, and maybe from the commish. Until I read otherwise, I'll assume the teams weren't the main proponents.
CFLPA wants it for your 3rd bolded point: 2 more players making bank (vs PR money). That's really all the CFPLA wants, more players earning more money (and safety). They literally care about nothing else (nor should they), beyond tokenism ("we want the cfl to succeed!").
League would want it as it sounds like they want to cut down on the shenanigans (see the "cleaned up language" thread). Make stashing 2 guys legit and transparent -- everyone wins.
Why not just +2 the AR? The teams & league may not have wanted it. 1) That's a very tough change to later reverse if it doesn't work out -- whereas the reserve can be tweaked every season without trouble. 2) May complicate how the teams structure sets & schemes and roster composition -- GM's/HC's may not want to have rewrite all of their carefully crafted plans. 3) If they +2'd the AR without any changes to 1GIR, teams would have gobbled up the +2 and *still* stashed another 2 on 1GIR. 4) Too late for '26 season to +2 the AR anyhow -- have to announce that sort of change in Dec.
Quote from: Jesse on May 01, 2026, 10:57:52 AMI imagine your reserve will change game to game depending on what you might likely need in each game.
Teams will obviously still be able to use the 1GIR and to pay PR players whatever they like.
But will they though (on the 1GIR)? (See "cleaned up language" thread.)
The PR "pay what you want" thing I fully agree with and wonder why everyone thinks just because a non-ELC player goes to PR they suddenly only get PR money. A middling vet contract is a contract and (unless it says otherwise) they get that contracted money.
Of course some will doom about "PR sniping", but it never happens, and you can solve it just by moving the snipee to reserve/AR the snipe-attempt-day anyhow. And the player has to agree to being sniped! If they are getting their full contract $ on PR, with full knowledge they are just being stashed (i.e. wanted, but not for this week's game or whatever), would they leave for similar $ elsewhere?
Quote from: Tecno on May 02, 2026, 04:17:09 AMMaybe it's confusing because you're not thinking from the perspective of whoever pushed this change. From what I read it sounds like this push was from the CFLPA, and maybe from the commish. Until I read otherwise, I'll assume the teams weren't the main proponents.
CFLPA wants it for your 3rd bolded point: 2 more players making bank (vs PR money). That's really all the CFPLA wants, more players earning more money (and safety). They literally care about nothing else (nor should they), beyond tokenism ("we want the cfl to succeed!").
League would want it as it sounds like they want to cut down on the shenanigans (see the "cleaned up language" thread). Make stashing 2 guys legit and transparent -- everyone wins.
Why not just +2 the AR? The teams & league may not have wanted it. 1) That's a very tough change to later reverse if it doesn't work out -- whereas the reserve can be tweaked every season without trouble. 2) May complicate how the teams structure sets & schemes and roster composition -- GM's/HC's may not want to have rewrite all of their carefully crafted plans. 3) If they +2'd the AR without any changes to 1GIR, teams would have gobbled up the +2 and *still* stashed another 2 on 1GIR. 4) Too late for '26 season to +2 the AR anyhow -- have to announce that sort of change in Dec.
I don't find it confusing at all. Whether it has an impact at all on stashing players on the 1 game IR, I doubt. We'll see players still moved to 1 game IR.
I'm not suggesting a 60 man AR ( as an extreme example ). However if you add more players to the AR, there is less need to stash players in that sense.
If you can create a reserve list, you can add or reduce the number on the AR in the future.
I can't see how expanding the AR is ever a concern.
NFL is 53 players AR and 16 PR. And they field only 11 players a side.
CFL should be at least the same, especially since we have ratio to deal with.
8 players less to cover 2 more positions, that's a 10 player difference.
Any added players on an expanded roster would no doubt be min wage/ELC types. So the $SMS wouldn't jump too dramatically.
There is a difference between Active Roster & Game Day Roster.
NFL AR is 53 but the GDR is 47 (or 48 if a team dresses 8 OL). That leaves 5-6 players on the Inactive List which is just another name for what the CFL calls the Reserve List.
The CFL has effectively increased the AR by 2 players. In previous iterations of the Reserve List, the reserve players (or inactive players) were considered to be part of the AR.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 02, 2026, 01:06:21 PMI'm not suggesting a 60 man AR ( as an extreme example ). However if you add more players to the AR, there is less need to stash players in that sense.
If you can create a reserve list, you can add or reduce the number on the AR in the future.
Well, then take more of your "cost" tack justifying (or not) the reserve vs AR expansion. How about away games? AR guys would fly out and need a hotel room. Reserve guys...? Will the reserve fly out? I would assume if no one is GTD then the answer is "no"?
So there's one other reason the league would allow +2 reserve instead of +2 AR.
(And I'm just playing devil's advocate and trying to figure it out too. I'm with many here that +2 AR would be nothing but a good thing for us fans.)
Quote from: Tecno on May 03, 2026, 04:44:34 AMWell, then take more of your "cost" tack justifying (or not) the reserve vs AR expansion. How about away games? AR guys would fly out and need a hotel room. Reserve guys...? Will the reserve fly out? I would assume if no one is GTD then the answer is "no"?
So there's one other reason the league would allow +2 reserve instead of +2 AR.
(And I'm just playing devil's advocate and trying to figure it out too. I'm with many here that +2 AR would be nothing but a good thing for us fans.)
I think it's safe to say some players are nicked every week after the 1st game. Whether they can play is always a TBD. We saw that last year.
So yes I think the reserve list travels with the team. It does add some additional cost but doesn't the team charter a plane? Players probably double up in hotels I'd guess.
The other question I posed was do the 2 reserve players get changed game to game to adjust for those that might need to a GTD? If so where do those moved from the reserve go?
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 03, 2026, 01:11:29 PMI think it's safe to say some players are nicked every week after the 1st game. Whether they can play is always a TBD. We saw that last year.
So yes I think the reserve list travels with the team. It does add some additional cost but doesn't the team charter a plane? Players probably double up in hotels I'd guess.
The other question I posed was do the 2 reserve players get changed game to game to adjust for those that might need to a GTD? If so where do those moved from the reserve go?
There's always a certain amount of rotation between AR to IR to PR.
Quote from: Jesse on May 03, 2026, 01:43:41 PMThere's always a certain amount of rotation between AR to IR to PR.
It's just an odd situation that a healthy player on the reserve would need to be bumped somewhere.
I also note that if even if they choose to increase the AR by 2 players, the same situation exists. Not every replacement need can be covered. The odds might improve a bit but who the next man up depends on who is nicked.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 03, 2026, 01:11:29 PMThe other question I posed was do the 2 reserve players get changed game to game to adjust for those that might need to a GTD? If so where do those moved from the reserve go?
I would think the reserve will be used as a +2 AR, just where 2 guys aren't dressed. Meaning you'll have 47 guys who are the top/best "who we want playing if everyone is healthy". Then park the 2 who you don't think you need for that week's opponent, or who are the "weakest" of the 47 (i.e. next man up).
This is in contrast to using the reserve to put possible replacements for a specific position just because you have a GTD guy there.
So the reserve becomes precisely a "stash" and nothing more.
Let's say Pokey is GTD. Let's say your reserve is usually 2 D guys. I don't think they'll change the reserve at all that week. I think they'll just fly along yet another dude from the PR to step in if the GTD is no-go. Assuming with this new reserve the league doesn't ban taking (or switching to) PR guys for GTDs...
I see absolutely no sense to parking 2 healthy players each game. They get a fullpaycheck, they travel, but they don't put on pads for the game.
Every player on the AR, that is getting a cheque, should be available to play.
GMs/Coaches have to decide what 45 or 47 men make the roster, why restrict them on 2 players?
46 and 47 are good enough to play, let them play. Otherwise, just have a 45 man roster and 46 and 47 can sit on the PR.
How about this idea, limit the 46 and 47 players to ST only. Or let them play teams, but with a max number of O/D snaps. "extreme backup"
Don't pay them a full game cheque to stand on the sidelines in street clothes.
Quote from: theaardvark on May 04, 2026, 03:26:39 PMI see absolutely no sense to parking 2 healthy players each game. They get a fullpaycheck, they travel, but they don't put on pads for the game.
Every player on the AR, that is getting a cheque, should be available to play.
GMs/Coaches have to decide what 45 or 47 men make the roster, why restrict them on 2 players?
46 and 47 are good enough to play, let them play. Otherwise, just have a 45 man roster and 46 and 47 can sit on the PR.
How about this idea, limit the 46 and 47 players to ST only. Or let them play teams, but with a max number of O/D snaps. "extreme backup"
Don't pay them a full game cheque to stand on the sidelines in street clothes.
I think the issue revolves around the question of ratio. That seems something easily overcome if the CFLPA chose to do so. IMO 1 import DI and 1 Canadian. The number of Canadian starters doesn't need to change as a result.
I'd even accept 2 additional Canadians and reduce the total number of players on the PR by 2.
Quote from: theaardvark on May 04, 2026, 03:26:39 PMI see absolutely no sense to parking 2 healthy players each game. They get a fullpaycheck, they travel, but they don't put on pads for the game.
Every player on the AR, that is getting a cheque, should be available to play.
GMs/Coaches have to decide what 45 or 47 men make the roster, why restrict them on 2 players?
46 and 47 are good enough to play, let them play. Otherwise, just have a 45 man roster and 46 and 47 can sit on the PR.
How about this idea, limit the 46 and 47 players to ST only. Or let them play teams, but with a max number of O/D snaps. "extreme backup"
Don't pay them a full game cheque to stand on the sidelines in street clothes.
How about throwing an occasional bone to outstanding PR players with a bright future who don't get on the roster all season long? Say that rookie OT that is bookmarked to replace Stanley next year, a couple of bonus pay packs might convince him to come back again next year, instead of deciding the CFL wasn't worth his time like Jaworski just did.
to me the purpose of the 2 reserve positions is so that you do not have to expose a player to the practice roster, or where a player doesn't want to move to pr and would end up becoming a free agent It would be for someone like a Knox or Wilson, if we only wanted to dress one for a game so we could utilize that roster position for a greater need.
Quote from: theaardvark on May 04, 2026, 03:26:39 PMI see absolutely no sense to parking 2 healthy players each game. They get a fullpaycheck, they travel, but they don't put on pads for the game.
Every player on the AR, that is getting a cheque, should be available to play.
GMs/Coaches have to decide what 45 or 47 men make the roster, why restrict them on 2 players?
46 and 47 are good enough to play, let them play. Otherwise, just have a 45 man roster and 46 and 47 can sit on the PR.
How about this idea, limit the 46 and 47 players to ST only. Or let them play teams, but with a max number of O/D snaps. "extreme backup"
Don't pay them a full game cheque to stand on the sidelines in street Quote from: theaardvark on May 04, 2026, 03:26:39 PMI see absolutely no sense to parking 2 healthy players each game. They get a fullpaycheck, they travel, but they don't put on pads for the game.
Every player on the AR, that is getting a cheque, should be available to play.
GMs/Coaches have to decide what 45 or 47 men make the roster, why restrict them on 2 players?
46 and 47 are good enough to play, let them play. Otherwise, just have a 45 man roster and 46 and 47 can sit on the PR.
How about this idea, limit the 46 and 47 players to ST only. Or let them play teams, but with a max number of O/D snaps. "extreme backup"
Don't pay them a full game cheque to stand on the sidelines in street clothes.
Inactive players in the past didn't travel for away games.
Quote from: Pete on May 04, 2026, 08:23:55 PMto me the purpose of the 2 reserve positions is so that you do not have to expose a player to the practice roster, or where a player doesn't want to move to pr and would end up becoming a free agent It would be for someone like a Knox or Wilson, if we only wanted to dress one for a game so we could utilize that roster position for a greater need.
When I first heard of this, I immediately thought of Knox/Wilson.
A vet who you don't have a spot for, but you want around in case of emergency or he shows better than what you got. You don't want to send him down to the PR, but he's gonna get signed somewhere else if you cut him...
But I'm sure every team will utilize it differently.
Quote from: Jesse on May 04, 2026, 09:59:11 PMWhen I first heard of this, I immediately thought of Knox/Wilson.
A vet who you don't have a spot for, but you want around in case of emergency or he shows better than what you got. You don't want to send him down to the PR, but he's gonna get signed somewhere else if you cut him...
But I'm sure every team will utilize it differently.
I don't know about any of that. Coaches have to decide on when to release a veteran outright. Keeping a vet that might be earning $100K-$120K sitting on the sidelines is not sensible.
A vet might be going from a starting role to being beaten out by the next man up. Andrew Harris, Bighill to name a few as examples.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 04, 2026, 10:21:13 PMI don't know about any of that. Coaches have to decide on when to release a veteran outright. Keeping a vet that might be earning $100K-$120K sitting on the sidelines is not sensible.
A vet might be going from a starting role to being beaten out by the next man up. Andrew Harris, Bighill to name a few as examples.
the orher factor which we've seen happen here, is near the end of the season injuries occur, especially to key positions such at mlb, receiver ,oline etc, and your trying to make do with a practice roster guy Having a good vet avail
is a good thing
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 04, 2026, 10:21:13 PMI don't know about any of that. Coaches have to decide on when to release a veteran outright. Keeping a vet that might be earning $100K-$120K sitting on the sidelines is not sensible.
Pete is right. It's insurance so we don't have a "no RECs left" scenario like early 2024. It's so hard to carry qualified (maybe sometimes "really old vet") players who are perfectly able to step in when injuries occur. Think of all the stashing we did on 1GIR in '25!
The fact it may cost $100-$120k per stash is money well spent vs running out of qualified players and finding out your rookies suck or aren't ready (or both).
Let's say JSK shines and wins WILL for week 1. I have no problems stashing Kyrie on the reserve at full pay. Chances are Jones or JSK will get hurt and then we can be at near 100% the next week. Instead of having to start, say, Cadwall!
Quote from: theaardvark on May 04, 2026, 03:26:39 PMI see absolutely no sense to parking 2 healthy players each game. They get a fullpaycheck, they travel, but they don't put on pads for the game.
I agree with gobombersgo. I'm not convinced the reserve 2 will travel. Especially if there's no GTD / iffy AR player (and even then!). Back when Faith was ALWAYS the healthy scratch, did he fly to away games or was he left in the bowels of IGF?
Quote from: theaardvark on May 04, 2026, 03:26:39 PMI see absolutely no sense to parking 2 healthy players each game. They get a fullpaycheck, they travel, but they don't put on pads for the game.
Every player on the AR, that is getting a cheque, should be available to play.
GMs/Coaches have to decide what 45 or 47 men make the roster, why restrict them on 2 players?
46 and 47 are good enough to play, let them play. Otherwise, just have a 45 man roster and 46 and 47 can sit on the PR.
How about this idea, limit the 46 and 47 players to ST only. Or let them play teams, but with a max number of O/D snaps. "extreme backup"
Don't pay them a full game cheque to stand on the sidelines in street clothes.
You're right, Aardvark. It doesn't make sense on its own.
But there's the chess above the table and the game below also. This one falls into the latter. The PA has never wanted increase roster sizes for obvious reasons. Paying two people now (or at least sometimes at the discretion of the teams) within the the CBA now makes it easy at the next bargaining to say, "look, no one is losing anything here, the market's already adapted to this and all we're doing it's simply allowing more players to play. A better product will result which is good for all of us"
It's a good move and a modest increase in roster size will absolutely make the game better just like some of the other changes we're seeing -- maybe more so.
Here's how we will know what the reserve really is, and in the first 3 weeks of the season:
1. Reserve players change every week based on what opponent we face and any GTDs. (Assuming no injury issues muddying the waters.)
2. Reserve players are fairly static.
#2 means the reserve is just a stash for your "next man up, good enough to start, but just lost out to the better guy in TC, and will be activated when there's an injury".
Since the reserve mandates 1 NAT (right?) I could see a guy like Shay or Daniels getting plunked on the reserve to start the season -- assuming they aren't the best next-man for ST work. Just perfect for your dev NATs who are expected to be top players, just not right now. They get practice and dev and full pay and can't get sniped, and they weren't going to get live O or D reps anyhow. The only loss is what they would have done on ST. So if they are demon STers, they won't be on the reserve...
The IMP side of the reserve I think will go to ageing vets, probably JSK or Kyrie. Or maybe a REC, if we had an extra one!
No. The increased practice roster rule is one Canadian and one American as they're net new so the split is very much of importance to the PA. The game day reserve can be anyone, regardless of status.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on May 05, 2026, 02:53:48 AMNo. The increased practice roster rule is one Canadian and one American as they're net new so the split is very much of importance to the PA. The game day reserve can be anyone, regardless of status.
Thanks, that's useful info, after I conflated the PR and RR changes.
That will make it even more interesting to see if teams opt to use the RR for vet IMP stashing or NAT-dev stashing. My guess is since the bar is pretty low for NAT dev to win a ST spot, most teams will be stashing 2 quality middling IMPs on RR.
Quote from: Pete on May 04, 2026, 08:23:55 PMto me the purpose of the 2 reserve positions is so that you do not have to expose a player to the practice roster, or where a player doesn't want to move to pr and would end up becoming a free agent It would be for someone like a Knox or Wilson, if we only wanted to dress one for a game so we could utilize that roster position for a greater need.
While not exposing them to the PR is a good thing, making them stand on the sidelines in street clothes while collecting the same game cheques as guys out there risking career ending injuries doesn't make sense.
If they are getting a game cheque, they should be dressed and on the field.
I am not sure if everyone is aware, but the salary cap also increased by 50k (now $6,330,514 for 2026).
This will help off-set the extra expenses for the 2 practice roster spots, 2 reserve spots and increased training camp pay.
The reserve guys won't create much of an added expense as they would have been on the 1 game injured list in most situations.
Quote from: theaardvark on May 05, 2026, 05:09:39 PMWhile not exposing them to the PR is a good thing, making them stand on the sidelines in street clothes while collecting the same game cheques as guys out there risking career ending injuries doesn't make sense.
If they are getting a game cheque, they should be dressed and on the field.
could be they are rotated in, theres always players banged up.
Quote from: Pete on May 05, 2026, 08:03:41 PMcould be they are rotated in, theres always players banged up.
Could be why they made a RR instead of +2 AR... makes in-game injuries harder to deal with and puts more emphasis on having quality NAT STers that can step in on O or D.
Almost because too easy if the AR is +2 and you have in-game injuries... if you lucked out in your position-picking then you're peachy vs crossing your fingers and hoping Cadwall is good enough to play every-snap MLB.
Did our global punter get an NFL mini camp invite or is he not interested in the CFL? I didn't hear that but no record of him being signed yet. I know the DL did get a mini camp invite but could be here be the main TC.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 06, 2026, 06:28:02 PMDid our global punter get an NFL mini camp invite or is he not interested in the CFL? I didn't hear that but no record of him being signed yet. I know the DL did get a mini camp invite but could be here be the main TC.
When Walters talked about the global signings, he made it seem like like they are hearing about the CFL for the very first time after they get drafted.
Quote from: Jesse on May 06, 2026, 07:00:43 PMWhen Walters talked about the global signings, he made it seem like like they are hearing about the CFL for the very first time after they get drafted.
You'd think they would speak with candidates before they draft them. I thought there was a global combine to evaluate and speak with players.
There is the kicking showcase in California every year now were draft eligible Global players are among the participants.
Bombers' draft pick Keegan Andrews was at this year's event.
He obviously would have known about the CFL and its most likely someone from the Bombers has talked at the event or before the draft.
Someone can give him a call and ask him. lol
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 06, 2026, 06:28:02 PMDid our global punter get an NFL mini camp invite or is he not interested in the CFL? I didn't hear that but no record of him being signed yet. I know the DL did get a mini camp invite but could be here be the main TC.
I think Walters said he was exploring his NFL opportunities and they were in no rush to bring him in.
Quote from: gobombersgo on May 06, 2026, 08:42:57 PMThere is the kicking showcase in California every year now were draft eligible Global players are among the participants.
Bombers' draft pick Keegan Andrews was at this year's event.
He obviously would have known about the CFL and its most likely someone from the Bombers has talked at the event or before the draft.
Someone can give him a call and ask him. lol
Waste of size for a kicker, make him a linebacker or a TE!
Alot of on-line talk about his booming leg.
By the way, Google tells me Andrews was invited to the NY Jets rookie mini-camp happening this coming weekend.
Quote from: gobombersgo on May 06, 2026, 09:08:05 PMAlot of on-line talk about his booming leg.
By the way, Google tells me Andrews was invited to the NY Jets rookie mini-camp happening this coming weekend.
Did not see a lot of finesse in that video, he looked pretty raw.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on May 06, 2026, 09:03:16 PMWaste of size for a kicker, make him a linebacker or a TE!
Well, if the returner makes it to him, it'll be fun to watch him lay the wood!