Blue Bombers Forum

The Extra Point => Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum => Topic started by: TecnoGenius on January 05, 2020, 06:52:29 AM



Title: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 05, 2020, 06:52:29 AM
Question: with the new 2QB rule, assuming you can still dress 3 QBs (with 1 being a DI), does the 3rd count as a QB?  Designated QBs have special rules, like having to have one present in the formation at all times.  What if the 3rd doesn't count as a designated QB because the rule says only 2 designated QBs?

Does that mean if our 2 QBs were Nichols/McGuire, and we wanted Collaros dressed too, that if we run a play with Collaros at QB we have to have McGuire somewhere in the formation as well??  Has anyone looked into this?

In other words, is Ambrosie not only making it unattractive to dress 3 QBs: is he making it basically impossible?  (Where impossible = incredibly onerous and extremely disadvantageous.)


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Jets on January 05, 2020, 07:48:47 AM
I have a hunch (unless it's outlawed) that most teams dress their 3rd QB as a "WR" or something but just keep them on the bench or on specials.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: gobombersgo on January 05, 2020, 01:17:57 PM
Wasn't there also a change in the CBA for this upcoming season in regards to player substitutions?

Won't Americans be able to replace Nationals when they are injured in game?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 05, 2020, 01:45:10 PM
QB's are QB's. 2 on the game day roster is the new rule. Dressing a 3rd would be interesting ratio wise. Likely would be classed as an import/DI.

My guess is that teams won't be allowed to dress a 3rd QB or designate a 3rd QB as anything else next year.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Jesse on January 05, 2020, 01:45:42 PM
I'm assuming 2 QBs means....wait for it.....2 QBs.

A third QB on the roster would have to be on the PR or injury list.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 05, 2020, 02:28:46 PM
I'm assuming 2 QBs means....wait for it.....2 QBs.

A third QB on the roster would have to be on the PR or injury list.

+ 1.  Dressing a # 3 QB as a DI and calling him a WR would be pointless.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Lincoln Locomotive on January 05, 2020, 03:08:23 PM
The rule is absolutely absurd and counter intuitive based on all the injuries to QBs last season.   There have been games in CFL in past seasons where both #1 and #2 QBs went down and teams had to play their #3 pivot.    It happens.   I can't understand how the anyone could endorse this move by Ambrosie???


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on January 05, 2020, 03:08:40 PM
This has been discussed before, the CFL has rules in place that identify QB's and do not allow them to fill in at other positions. Probably the only reason we never saw Streveler and Collaros on the field at the same time, which would have been fun to watch.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on January 05, 2020, 04:41:26 PM
The rule is absolutely absurd and counter intuitive based on all the injuries to QBs last season.   There have been games in CFL in past seasons where both #1 and #2 QBs went down and teams had to play their #3 pivot.    It happens.   I can't understand how the anyone could endorse this move by Ambrosie???

Lest we forget Ambrosie is the spokesperson for the owners, not a tin-pot dictator that makes up the rules on a whim and the schedule on the fly.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: blue_or_die on January 05, 2020, 04:49:44 PM
I think the reason this topic continues to resurface seemingly every week is because it's frankly unbelievable.

Like, "you guys sure it's going to work this way? Because it doesn't make sense." Understandable.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: dd on January 05, 2020, 05:51:57 PM
The rule is absolutely absurd and counter intuitive based on all the injuries to QBs last season.   There have been games in CFL in past seasons where both #1 and #2 QBs went down and teams had to play their #3 pivot.    It happens.   I can't understand how the anyone could endorse this move by Ambrosie???
I agree the rule is counter intuitive, but when has both the #1 and #2 QBs went down to injury??


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 05, 2020, 06:00:05 PM
I agree the rule is counter intuitive, but when has both the #1 and #2 QBs went down to injury??

It has happened in the past. Most recent that I recall is Montreal a couple of years ago.

That's less the point in how does it help retain a # 3 QB in the development path. A # 3 with at least 1 CFL season isn't going to want to sit on the PR for PR money. Of course you can pay him more but it's counter productive to just having him on the AR.

PR spots are limited and using 1 one for a QB seems a waste unless he is actually a true rookie. Then what happens when he's going into his 2nd year? He won't then want to sit on the PR for a 2nd season.

Ambrosie needs to change this rule, otherwise we're just going to see a QB on teams 1 game IR. That's just bending this system and creates no advantage to the SMS.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: blue girl on January 05, 2020, 06:47:36 PM
The way that I understand it is that you can only have 2 QBs  on the active roster. However I suspect that teams will have a third QB on the 1 game IR with some sort of injury. As for Americans replacing Canadians during the game I believe that it has to be an American that has played in the league for 5 years and only if a Canadian is injured.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Stats Junkie on January 05, 2020, 07:05:13 PM
I agree the rule is counter intuitive, but when has both the #1 and #2 QBs went down to injury??
It doesn't happen that often where the starter and backup are both injured but it does happen.

BC - Oct 19, 1996 - Damon Allen & Chris Vargas injured - Giulio Caravatta played. Vargas missed the rest of the season and Caravatta started the next game.

Cgy - Sep 1, 2008 - Henry Burris & Dave Dickenson injured - Barrick Nealy played. Dickenson's career was over - Burris started the next game

Edm - Sep 5, 1988 - Damon Allen & Tracy Ham injured - WR Stephen Jones played QB for 1 series before Ham returned to the game. Damon Allen missed the next 3 games

Ham - Nov 8, 1992 - Damon Allen & Don McPherson injured - Todd Dillon played. Damon Allen started the next game

Mtl - Jul 18, 1978 - Joe Barnes & Sonny Wade injured - Barnes returned to the game after Wade's injury. Wade missed the next 9 games.
Mtl - Aug 29, 1978 - Larry Lawrence & Joe Barnes injured - Gerry Dattilio played. Lawrence never played again & Dattilio got the next start
Mtl - Jun 25, 2015 - Jonathan Crompton & Dan Lefevour injured - Brandon Bridge played. Lefevour missed the rest of the season - Crompton missed the next 9 games - Rakeem Cato started the following week

Ott - Oct 9, 1989 - Damon Allen & Willie Gillus injured - WR Steve Howlett played one series at QB - Starter Damon Allen returned to the game. Both Allen & Gillus missed the remainder of the season. Tony Kimbrough started the next game.

Ssk - Jul 28, 2000 - Henry Burris & Jim Ballard injured - Burris finished the game - John Rayborn was dressed as the 3rd string QB. Ballard missed the remainder of the season.
Ssk - Jun 13, 2019 - Zach Collaros & Cody Fajardo injured - Isaac Harker finished the game - Fajardo did return to run the short yardage offence. Collaros missed most of the season & Fajardo started the next game.

Tor - Nov 11, 1990 - Rickey Foggie & John Congemi injured - Willie Gillus played. Foggie missed the final game of the season & Congemi started the next game.

Wpg - Oct 13, 1996 - Kent Austin & Reggie Slack injured - Kent Austin returned to the game. Reggie Slack missed the next 3 games & Kevin McDougal started the next game
Wpg - Oct 23, 2010 - Steven Jyles & Alex Brink injured - Joey Elliott played. Jyles & Brink missed the rest of the season and Elliott started.
Wpg - Sep 24, 2011 - Buck Pierce & Alex Brink injured - Justin Goltz played. Pierce missed one game & Brink started the next game.
Wpg - Oct 27, 2012 - Buck Pierce & joey Elliott injured - Alex Brink played. Pierce & Elliott missed the final game of the season & Brink got the start.

*
Wpg - Oct 2, 1988 - starter Tom Muecke left the field during the warmup and spent the remainder of the day in hospital (fluid build up in elbow). The Blue Bombers tried to dress Roy Dewalt but the CFL wouldn't allow it as the lineup was already set. Sean Salisbury played the game without a backup QB.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Doublezero on January 05, 2020, 07:43:27 PM
CFL wont attract QBs with high potential once it is realized they are going to collect a PR cheque sitting behind the #1 and #2. What is the rationale for this rule change?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Point of attack on January 05, 2020, 07:44:52 PM
Exactly what the leagues motivation is still unclear.
The overall effect to develop fewer QBs could actually be detrimental to player safety in game for one, and secondly a third option at QB has to be at least a consideration for any teams roster which basically defeats the purpose of the rule.
 So the Bombers new H back is Streveler?
The other dynamic to consider is how this would effect the size of the roster overall.
If someone could enlighten me here please do.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: blue girl on January 05, 2020, 08:03:35 PM
I believe that they're taking the third QB off to add another Global player. I personally and I suspect that the majority of the fans would rather have a third QB. I'm hoping that Ambrosie will have his annual tour of the league and that I'll be able to attend. If so I'd like to ask him about this.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: GOLDMEMBER on January 05, 2020, 08:22:45 PM
CFL wont attract QBs with high potential once it is realized they are going to collect a PR cheque sitting behind the #1 and #2. What is the rationale for this rule change?
I cannot  think of a single one!


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 05, 2020, 08:43:46 PM
I believe that they're taking the third QB off to add another Global player. I personally and I suspect that the majority of the fans would rather have a third QB. I'm hoping that Ambrosie will have his annual tour of the league and that I'll be able to attend. If so I'd like to ask him about this.

Nothing would have prevented them from increasing the roster size by 1 in order to have 2 Global players. The Globals are SMS excluded as far as I know. In that sense there is an SMS advantage by eliminating the # 3 QB but it still makes no sense. Many of the # 3 QB's were on ELC's.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: dd on January 05, 2020, 09:44:24 PM
It doesn't happen that often where the starter and backup are both injured but it does happen.

BC - Oct 19, 1996 - Damon Allen & Chris Vargas injured - Giulio Caravatta played. Vargas missed the rest of the season and Caravatta started the next game.

Cgy - Sep 1, 2008 - Henry Burris & Dave Dickenson injured - Barrick Nealy played. Dickenson's career was over - Burris started the next game

Edm - Sep 5, 1988 - Damon Allen & Tracy Ham injured - WR Stephen Jones played QB for 1 series before Ham returned to the game. Damon Allen missed the next 3 games

Ham - Nov 8, 1992 - Damon Allen & Don McPherson injured - Todd Dillon played. Damon Allen started the next game

Mtl - Jul 18, 1978 - Joe Barnes & Sonny Wade injured - Barnes returned to the game after Wade's injury. Wade missed the next 9 games.
Mtl - Aug 29, 1978 - Larry Lawrence & Joe Barnes injured - Gerry Dattilio played. Lawrence never played again & Dattilio got the next start
Mtl - Jun 25, 2015 - Jonathan Crompton & Dan Lefevour injured - Brandon Bridge played. Lefevour missed the rest of the season - Crompton missed the next 9 games - Rakeem Cato started the following week

Ott - Oct 9, 1989 - Damon Allen & Willie Gillus injured - WR Steve Howlett played one series at QB - Starter Damon Allen returned to the game. Both Allen & Gillus missed the remainder of the season. Tony Kimbrough started the next game.

Ssk - Jul 28, 2000 - Henry Burris & Jim Ballard injured - Burris finished the game - John Rayborn was dressed as the 3rd string QB. Ballard missed the remainder of the season.
Ssk - Jun 13, 2019 - Zach Collaros & Cody Fajardo injured - Isaac Harker finished the game - Fajardo did return to run the short yardage offence. Collaros missed most of the season & Fajardo started the next game.

Tor - Nov 11, 1990 - Rickey Foggie & John Congemi injured - Willie Gillus played. Foggie missed the final game of the season & Congemi started the next game.

Wpg - Oct 13, 1996 - Kent Austin & Reggie Slack injured - Kent Austin returned to the game. Reggie Slack missed the next 3 games & Kevin McDougal started the next game
Wpg - Oct 23, 2010 - Steven Jyles & Alex Brink injured - Joey Elliott played. Jyles & Brink missed the rest of the season and Elliott started.
Wpg - Sep 24, 2011 - Buck Pierce & Alex Brink injured - Justin Goltz played. Pierce missed one game & Brink started the next game.
Wpg - Oct 27, 2012 - Buck Pierce & joey Elliott injured - Alex Brink played. Pierce & Elliott missed the final game of the season & Brink got the start.

*
Wpg - Oct 2, 1988 - starter Tom Muecke left the field during the warmup and spent the remainder of the day in hospital (fluid build up in elbow). The Blue Bombers tried to dress Roy Dewalt but the CFL wouldn't allow it as the lineup was already set. Sean Salisbury played the game without a backup QB.
Wow, thanks for the info/stats, very eye opening.

 I don?t see the rationale behind the rule change at all, in fact, it?s counter productive to developing your #3 Qb. Khari Jones was a #3 Qb in BC before he came here, and look at masoli, and Adams and I m sure there?s way more. It?s one thing to hang around on an ELC and another to hang around for PR money in the cfl. The league has got to change this error


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: blue girl on January 05, 2020, 10:22:29 PM
I haven't seen one person that's for this rule.  ???


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: pjrocksmb on January 05, 2020, 11:06:01 PM
I don't like the rule but I assume it's a money savings idea pushed by owners and accepted by the league?  Just a guess.  I love watching all three QBs on every team.  Nice to see the future.  Nice to develop these great pros.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 06, 2020, 12:22:38 AM
I think it's a dumb rule, but the sky isn't falling. Most NFL teams only carry 2 QBs on game day rosters. It hasn't hurt them much.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: dd on January 06, 2020, 02:24:18 AM
Not sure about the nfl, but stats junkie showed us all how often both QBs get knocked out of the game. Not having anyone to take snaps will affect the on field product

Also, Are the 3rd string QBs on the active roster in the NFL?? Having the 3rd stringer hang around on PR wages means not many will stick around as they can get better pay anywhere else doing pretty much anything.

Also, the cfl had what 8 of it?s 9 starting QBs hurt this year. Has Tom Brady ever been hurt and missed games?? Drew brees?? (I know he was hurt in a playoff game years ago with the chargers but he didn?t miss any regular season games). Russell Wilson etc etc. The cfl is a league that lives and dies by the Qb, and given the frequency that both 1&2 are knocked out, this rule makes no sense.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Point of attack on January 06, 2020, 02:36:03 AM
I think it's a dumb rule, but the sky isn't falling. Most NFL teams only carry 2 QBs on game day rosters. It hasn't hurt them much.
[/quote





As with any roster implications the devil is in the details which are a little scarce at this point.
Is exposing more QBs on PRs the idea ?
Providing more opportunities for more QBs ?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: blue_or_die on January 06, 2020, 01:50:21 PM
I don't like the rule but I assume it's a money savings idea pushed by owners and accepted by the league?  Just a guess.  I love watching all three QBs on every team.  Nice to see the future.  Nice to develop these great pros.

This is all I can think of, and it's a stretch. Like someone else said, Ambrosie follows the wishes of the owners so this can't be just his hair-brained scheme.

Is this the first time we all agree on something?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 06, 2020, 02:23:22 PM
I can't believe the league is actually saving any money doing this. They're adding another global player to the roster. While that may be SMS exempt it still a cost going to the bottom line. How is that any different than a 3rd QB cost on an ELC?

Yes a # 3 QB might be higher than the very bottom of an ELC but how much? How much does it actually cost for 2 globals on the AR and 2 on the PR even if it's SMS exempt?



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on January 06, 2020, 02:26:45 PM
This is all I can think of, and it's a stretch. Like someone else said, Ambrosie follows the wishes of the owners so this can't be just his hair-brained scheme.

Is this the first time we all agree on something?

I think the rules committee meets every year in Feb. or March in Banff as part of the league's annual meeting, I guess we'll find out if this rule becomes reality at that point. 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 06, 2020, 03:48:31 PM
Not sure about the nfl, but stats junkie showed us all how often both QBs get knocked out of the game. Not having anyone to take snaps will affect the on field product

Also, Are the 3rd string QBs on the active roster in the NFL?? Having the 3rd stringer hang around on PR wages means not many will stick around as they can get better pay anywhere else doing pretty much anything.

Also, the cfl had what 8 of it?s 9 starting QBs hurt this year. Has Tom Brady ever been hurt and missed games?? Drew brees?? (I know he was hurt in a playoff game years ago with the chargers but he didn?t miss any regular season games). Russell Wilson etc etc. The cfl is a league that lives and dies by the Qb, and given the frequency that both 1&2 are knocked out, this rule makes no sense.
16 times in 40+ years isn't that many times less than 1% ((42 Years X 95 Games per year)/16) of the total games. Some of those times, an injured QB could likely have played if there was no 3rd QB.

You can pay you PR guys more than the minimum. Just like every other position, it's accept the PR wage or give up on your football dream. A lot of guys will take the PR wage, but some QB's will make the other choice which will water down the QB level in the CFL which is something no fan wants.

The CFL has been here before. Back in the old days,there were 2 QB's on every roster. A player, usually who'd played QB in high school or college would be chosen by each team to learn a few plays and go in if both real QB's went down. Pretty much guaranteed a loss, but so does being forced to use a 3rd string QB with very limited reps. 

As for saving money... I doubt that's the reason it was done and I doubt it will save much if anything. 3rd string QB's will still want more than minimum PR dollars to stick around. The global player gets league minimum.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: BlueInCgy on January 06, 2020, 04:07:43 PM
Interesting how there's a repeat in QBs who went down in dual injury seasons, with Damon Allen at 4 (and Hank twice, Buck twice, and Brink twice).  Granted for the number of years Allen played, I guess it could be expected, though it was at the beginning of his career.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 06, 2020, 04:47:57 PM
16 times in 40+ years isn't that many times less than 1% ((42 Years X 95 Games per year)/16) of the total games. Some of those times, an injured QB could likely have played if there was no 3rd QB.

You can pay you PR guys more than the minimum. Just like every other position, it's accept the PR wage or give up on your football dream. A lot of guys will take the PR wage, but some QB's will make the other choice which will water down the QB level in the CFL which is something no fan wants.

The CFL has been here before. Back in the old days,there were 2 QB's on every roster. A player, usually who'd played QB in high school or college would be chosen by each team to learn a few plays and go in if both real QB's went down. Pretty much guaranteed a loss, but so does being forced to use a 3rd string QB with very limited reps. 

As for saving money... I doubt that's the reason it was done and I doubt it will save much if anything. 3rd string QB's will still want more than minimum PR dollars to stick around. The global player gets league minimum.

It may not be that common but that's not really the point. How many seasons have teams normally rostered a 3rd QB on their active roster? Decades.

While a # 3 Qb may not often see the field he's getting a paycheck that makes staying around worthwhile. That's not always the case for sticking on a PR.

Is there a current CFL QB that didn't start as a # 3 QB on their teams AR?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: blue_or_die on January 06, 2020, 05:02:26 PM
It's also that in the case of injury to QB1 (happens all the time), QB3 becomes QB2 and get much valuable reps in practice the week leading up + short yardage situations.

It's all about development, not one-off emergency situations IMO.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Jesse on January 06, 2020, 05:06:12 PM
It's also that in the case of injury to QB1 (happens all the time), QB3 becomes QB2 and get much valuable reps in practice the week leading up + short yardage situations.

It's all about development, not one-off emergency situations IMO.

Obviously, teams will still carry a third QB, they're just going to have be PR players (or an abuse of the injured list).

The question then remains - if teams are going to keep a third QB anyway (because they have to), why bother changing the rule?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 06, 2020, 05:10:26 PM
Obviously, teams will still carry a third QB, they're just going to have be PR players (or an abuse of the injured list).

The question then remains - if teams are going to keep a third QB anyway (because they have to), why bother changing the rule?

That's the question we're all asking. There is still time to reconsider this absurd idea.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: blue_or_die on January 06, 2020, 05:44:37 PM
Obviously, teams will still carry a third QB, they're just going to have be PR players (or an abuse of the injured list).

The question then remains - if teams are going to keep a third QB anyway (because they have to), why bother changing the rule?

Still one less QB who would otherwise be waiting in the wings on the PR.

Will the PR be expanded, or will this change then come at the ultimate expense of a different position that otherwise might fill a PR spot?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: blue newt on January 06, 2020, 05:46:02 PM
I wonder if this is going to create a demand in the scouting world for players who've played quarterback as well as another position in their past.  Think of Lankford with his kicking.  Not why he was rostered, but it certainly didn't hurt matters that he could fill in.  So, in this scenario, when Streveler was scouted, he may have been scouted as a receiver or running back, with the knowledge that it doesn't hurt to have him quarterback if need be.  (I'm not suggesting Strev would switch at this point, but if he were a young player being recruited who could play more than one role...).  On the rare occasion they're needed, at least they'd know the playbook and already be dressed to play.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: blue_or_die on January 06, 2020, 05:46:52 PM
I wonder if this is going to create a demand in the scouting world for players who've played quarterback as well as another position in their past.  Think of Lankford with his kicking.  Not why he was rostered, but it certainly didn't hurt matters that he could fill in.  So, in this scenario, when Streveler was scouted, he may have been scouted as a receiver or running back, with the knowledge that it doesn't hurt to have him quarterback if need be.  (I'm not suggesting Strev would switch at this point, but if he were a young player being recruited who could play more than one role...).  On the rare occasion they're needed, at least they'd know the playbook and already be dressed to play.

We have used Darvin Adams' QB prowess in the past.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: the paw on January 06, 2020, 06:16:56 PM
Obviously, teams will still carry a third QB, they're just going to have be PR players (or an abuse of the injured list).

The question then remains - if teams are going to keep a third QB anyway (because they have to), why bother changing the rule?

I think teams will carry their 3rd QB on the PR.  PR salary counts against the cap, and you don't have to pay the minimum, so there is no cap implication to this change. 

They are doing it, IMHO, because Ambrosie wants to increase the number of global players, and this is low hanging fruit.  The #3 is rarely needed in a game, so you can convert the active roster spot to a global spot without decreasing the number of nationals or internationals.  Which is a consideration, given that the former have the longstanding ratio protection and the latter just negotiated a new "veteran import" ratio in the last collective agreement. 

I don't think having the #3 QB on the PR is going to negatively effect quarterback development or team readiness in any meaningful way.  I think the new 3 veteran Americans starting is not going to require too much stretching, but I am worried about the precedent.

What really has me concerned is that they are agreeing to all these fundamental changes on how the roster is structured, but they played the entire last season without having finalized the CBA language on the NFL window and other matters.  That is a half-assed approach to bargaining and administering a collective agreement.  Not to mention we are all tying ourselves in knots trying to figure out how these changes apply in real time, but the truth is the parties themselves haven't figured it out yet. 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Jesse on January 06, 2020, 06:33:18 PM
I think teams will carry their 3rd QB on the PR.  PR salary counts against the cap, and you don't have to pay the minimum, so there is no cap implication to this change. 

They are doing it, IMHO, because Ambrosie wants to increase the number of global players, and this is low hanging fruit.  The #3 is rarely needed in a game, so you can convert the active roster spot to a global spot without decreasing the number of nationals or internationals.  Which is a consideration, given that the former have the longstanding ratio protection and the latter just negotiated a new "veteran import" ratio in the last collective agreement. 

I don't think having the #3 QB on the PR is going to negatively effect quarterback development or team readiness in any meaningful way.  I think the new 3 veteran Americans starting is not going to require too much stretching, but I am worried about the precedent.

What really has me concerned is that they are agreeing to all these fundamental changes on how the roster is structured, but they played the entire last season without having finalized the CBA language on the NFL window and other matters.  That is a half-assed approach to bargaining and administering a collective agreement.  Not to mention we are all tying ourselves in knots trying to figure out how these changes apply in real time, but the truth is the parties themselves haven't figured it out yet. 

That's the rub. There are no definitive answers yet.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 06, 2020, 06:44:22 PM
It may not be that common but that's not really the point. How many seasons have teams normally rostered a 3rd QB on their active roster? Decades.

While a # 3 Qb may not often see the field he's getting a paycheck that makes staying around worthwhile. That's not always the case for sticking on a PR.

Is there a current CFL QB that didn't start as a # 3 QB on their teams AR?
Not being common is the big reason they did it IMO. Most teams have needed the 3rd string QB only once in the decades since the 3rd string QB was put on the roster.

The getting paid thing is a red herring. Teams can pay whatever they want to for PR players. #3 QB's will still get paid, they just won't be on the game day roster.

Some teams will choose to save some money by not having a #3 QB. They will be taking a big chance, but they can always take a #3 QB from another teams PR when they need to. Most teams wouldn't stand in the way of their #3 QB getting a chance to be on another team's roster. If they don't want the other team to 'steal' the 3rd string QB, they could game day roster them then make them they guy who doesn't get to play.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: blue_or_die on January 06, 2020, 07:04:49 PM
I think teams will carry their 3rd QB on the PR.  PR salary counts against the cap, and you don't have to pay the minimum, so there is no cap implication to this change. 

They are doing it, IMHO, because Ambrosie wants to increase the number of global players, and this is low hanging fruit.  The #3 is rarely needed in a game, so you can convert the active roster spot to a global spot without decreasing the number of nationals or internationals.  Which is a consideration, given that the former have the longstanding ratio protection and the latter just negotiated a new "veteran import" ratio in the last collective agreement. 

I don't think having the #3 QB on the PR is going to negatively effect quarterback development or team readiness in any meaningful way.  I think the new 3 veteran Americans starting is not going to require too much stretching, but I am worried about the precedent.

What really has me concerned is that they are agreeing to all these fundamental changes on how the roster is structured, but they played the entire last season without having finalized the CBA language on the NFL window and other matters.  That is a half-assed approach to bargaining and administering a collective agreement.  Not to mention we are all tying ourselves in knots trying to figure out how these changes apply in real time, but the truth is the parties themselves haven't figured it out yet. 

Why not just increase the roster by 1, then?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 06, 2020, 07:41:41 PM
Not being common is the big reason they did it IMO. Most teams have needed the 3rd string QB only once in the decades since the 3rd string QB was put on the roster.

The getting paid thing is a red herring. Teams can pay whatever they want to for PR players. #3 QB's will still get paid, they just won't be on the game day roster.

Some teams will choose to save some money by not having a #3 QB. They will be taking a big chance, but they can always take a #3 QB from another teams PR when they need to. Most teams wouldn't stand in the way of their #3 QB getting a chance to be on another team's roster. If they don't want the other team to 'steal' the 3rd string QB, they could game day roster them then make them they guy who doesn't get to play.

How many times do we have to repeat that putting a QB on a PR takes 1 of 10 open spots. Everybody knows he can be paid more than SMS minimum.

The logic is then placing said QB on the 1 game IR.

If you're going to do that you may as well not delete him from the AR. In some cases the # 3 QB is the holder and / or plays ST's. That's at least at benefit and reason to have him on the AR instead of the PR.

Saying the salary is a red herring is just your own red herring IMO. That's just suggesting it's a league slight of hand that doesn't accomplish squat if teams do that.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: the paw on January 06, 2020, 09:37:59 PM
Why not just increase the roster by 1, then?

Because that increases cost to the clubs.  If you add a roster spot and don't bump up the cap, it places downward pressure on wages.  With the raise in the minimum salary they are already putting downward pressure on all non-minimum contracts to compensate. 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: the paw on January 06, 2020, 09:43:58 PM
How many times do we have to repeat that putting a QB on a PR takes 1 of 10 open spots. Everybody knows he can be paid more than SMS minimum.

The logic is then placing said QB on the 1 game IR.

If you're going to do that you may as well not delete him from the AR. In some cases the # 3 QB is the holder and / or plays ST's. That's at least at benefit and reason to have him on the AR instead of the PR.

Saying the salary is a red herring is just your own red herring IMO. That's just suggesting it's a league slight of hand that doesn't accomplish squat if teams do that.

You keep repeating the PR spot argument, but without recognizing why people aren't accepting it as determinative.  I think you put more value on the extra PR spot than most others do.  The reality is that while you don't want to waste the spot, it isn't so valuable that you protect it at all costs.  Using it for a #3 QB would be a good use of one single PR spot and have less cost impact that trying to abuse the IR system.  In the case of the Bombers, if they have to dress another Global, then it will free up a PR spot anyway, since we had one sitting there all year.

Who knows? Maybe some teams will do what you suggest, but I think the odds are that they will put the PR to its intended use. 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: blue_or_die on January 06, 2020, 11:30:07 PM
Because that increases cost to the clubs.  If you add a roster spot and don't bump up the cap, it places downward pressure on wages.  With the raise in the minimum salary they are already putting downward pressure on all non-minimum contracts to compensate. 

A league min player has marginal impact on overall roster costs.

If that?s all it is, this should have been worked into cap negotiations so the two could be tied.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 06, 2020, 11:46:29 PM
How many times do we have to repeat that putting a QB on a PR takes 1 of 10 open spots. Everybody knows he can be paid more than SMS minimum.

The logic is then placing said QB on the 1 game IR.

If you're going to do that you may as well not delete him from the AR. In some cases the # 3 QB is the holder and / or plays ST's. That's at least at benefit and reason to have him on the AR instead of the PR.

Saying the salary is a red herring is just your own red herring IMO. That's just suggesting it's a league slight of hand that doesn't accomplish squat if teams do that.
It's up to the teams how they use their 10 PR spots. Removing the #3 QB from the game roster doesn't change that one little bit.

If teams IR a QB for a bunch of weeks in a row, the league will change the IR rules because that's not what the IR is for.

I'm not saying this is any kind of league slight of hand. They are simply eliminating a position that is hardly ever used. Teams can still decide to carry the 3rd QB. They just can't have him in uniform on game day.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Jesse on January 06, 2020, 11:52:14 PM
A league min player has marginal impact on overall roster costs.

If that?s all it is, this should have been worked into cap negotiations so the two could be tied.

So much of this should be part of CBA negotiations, not continually forced as they think of new things.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on January 07, 2020, 01:11:14 AM
You keep repeating the PR spot argument, but without recognizing why people aren't accepting it as determinative.  I think you put more value on the extra PR spot than most others do.  The reality is that while you don't want to waste the spot, it isn't so valuable that you protect it at all costs.  Using it for a #3 QB would be a good use of one single PR spot and have less cost impact that trying to abuse the IR system.  In the case of the Bombers, if they have to dress another Global, then it will free up a PR spot anyway, since we had one sitting there all year.

Who knows? Maybe some teams will do what you suggest, but I think the odds are that they will put the PR to its intended use. 

I don't think it will be that hard to sell new QB prospects on accepting the PR spot once they realize how quickly they can move ono the roster once the starting QB goes down.  Not as if any of these guys have the option of playing QB elsewhere, Dane Evans was very close to taking a high-school coaching job just before he decided to give the CFL one last kick at the can.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: BLUEBOMBER on January 07, 2020, 06:43:34 AM
The CFL is clearly a two QB league.  You need at least 2 good QBs to be a winner in this league.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 07, 2020, 02:23:39 PM
A league min player has marginal impact on overall roster costs.

If that?s all it is, this should have been worked into cap negotiations so the two could be tied.

There have to be at least 20 players on the AR that get minimum, meaning a mandatory $320k increase in SMS.  Add to that the players who were getting marginally above minimum, who will also get raises, because they are worth more than a minimuimplayer and you can add at least another $300k in raises, that's $500+ with the cap going up marginally... that is something that will need to be planned for...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 07, 2020, 02:29:59 PM
You keep repeating the PR spot argument, but without recognizing why people aren't accepting it as determinative.  I think you put more value on the extra PR spot than most others do.  The reality is that while you don't want to waste the spot, it isn't so valuable that you protect it at all costs.  Using it for a #3 QB would be a good use of one single PR spot and have less cost impact that trying to abuse the IR system.  In the case of the Bombers, if they have to dress another Global, then it will free up a PR spot anyway, since we had one sitting there all year.

Who knows? Maybe some teams will do what you suggest, but I think the odds are that they will put the PR to its intended use. 

We had 2 Global spots used on the PR last year. With 2 on the AR this year I doubt we reduce that down to 1 on the PR. How does reducing that number add to development curve? Forcing the global players onto the AR and PR is at the expense of players more likely to see playing time.

None of the Bomber global players saw the AR last year in spite of many injuries we had. I'm not even sure those 2 will return in 2020.

You seem to think any QB that has been on an AR for a season ( McGuire for example ) is going to be willing to sit on the PR for lesser pay? If you think teams don't abuse the 1 game IR on a regular basis then IMO you are kidding yourself.

QB's on the PR are likely to be pure rookies and that's not a good thing. An injury to a starter and he moves from PR to # 2.

Most teams have had a QB on their PR's when they had 3 on their AR's. BC and Winnipeg for whatever reason were the exceptions.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: the paw on January 07, 2020, 04:30:02 PM
We had 2 Global spots used on the PR last year. With 2 on the AR this year I doubt we reduce that down to 1 on the PR. How does reducing that number add to development curve? Forcing the global players onto the AR and PR is at the expense of players more likely to see playing time.

None of the Bomber global players saw the AR last year in spite of many injuries we had. I'm not even sure those 2 will return in 2020.

You seem to think any QB that has been on an AR for a season ( McGuire for example ) is going to be willing to sit on the PR for lesser pay? If you think teams don't abuse the 1 game IR on a regular basis then IMO you are kidding yourself.

QB's on the PR are likely to be pure rookies and that's not a good thing. An injury to a starter and he moves from PR to # 2.

Most teams have had a QB on their PR's when they had 3 on their AR's. BC and Winnipeg for whatever reason were the exceptions.



I'll just clarify on the bolded portions.  First, Hansen was a Global player on the roster, so I think what you mean to say is neither of the two other Globals on the PR got activated.  That's true, but putting one of them in uniform and sending McGuire to the pressbox (or having him hold a clipboard in sweats instead of a uniform) doesn't really change much in terms of what transpires on the field.  And if the Commissioner wants to be able to say there are 2 Globals on the AR of every team so he can sign more deals with national federations, then that would serve as the rationale.  Neither of us may agree with it, but it's hardly a calamity.

Secondly, you don't have to pay McGuire any less than he currently makes if you put him on the practice roster.  The PR has a lower minimum pay, but no maximum, and all PR pay counts against the cap.  So your assumption that you can't use the PR for a developmental QB is flawed. 

Personally, I prefer the 3 QB system, but the historical evidence shows that the #3 really doesn't have to be in uniform on game day, and the Commissioner is using that fact to advance his goal of expanding the global imprint. 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 07, 2020, 04:48:04 PM
I'll just clarify on the bolded portions.  First, Hansen was a Global player on the roster, so I think what you mean to say is neither of the two other Globals on the PR got activated.  That's true, but putting one of them in uniform and sending McGuire to the pressbox (or having him hold a clipboard in sweats instead of a uniform) doesn't really change much in terms of what transpires on the field.  And if the Commissioner wants to be able to say there are 2 Globals on the AR of every team so he can sign more deals with national federations, then that would serve as the rationale.  Neither of us may agree with it, but it's hardly a calamity.

Secondly, you don't have to pay McGuire any less than he currently makes if you put him on the practice roster.  The PR has a lower minimum pay, but no maximum, and all PR pay counts against the cap.  So your assumption that you can't use the PR for a developmental QB is flawed. 

Personally, I prefer the 3 QB system, but the historical evidence shows that the #3 really doesn't have to be in uniform on game day, and the Commissioner is using that fact to advance his goal of expanding the global imprint. 

Yes I meant the 2 global players on our PR didn't ever get on the AR. I wonder how many on other teams sat on the PR all year as well. Further to that I wonder how many of those 27 global players return this season. Of course this year it's 2 AR + 2 PR X 9 = 36 possibilities.

Yes McGuire could earn an actual ELC on the PR. Where is there an advantage to that as opposed to just putting him on the 1 game IR? There is quite a range between expected PR money and min ELC deals.

We ended the season with 8 players on the 1 game IR including a couple added from the PR that never played. It's true they could have been injured in practice but IMO the team just wanted to keep them under contract.

Latour, Williams, Whitehead, Griffiths, Roh, Couture & Gray. The reality is that in some cases ( vets ) you want to keep them under contract and can't put them on the PR. Veteran cut down date etc etc but want them available if needed.

A couple of young Canadians they saw potential in as well.

I agree the # 3 QB doesn't have to be on the game day roster. It has more to do with the ability to develop a # 3 QB and keep him around. I think it will dilute the pool of those QB's willing to do that for any length of time.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 07, 2020, 05:49:00 PM
I agree the # 3 QB doesn't have to be on the game day roster. It has more to do with the ability to develop a # 3 QB and keep him around. I think it will dilute the pool of those QB's willing to do that for any length of time.
If teams pay them the same and they get to practice the same, why would players care if they are on the PR or not?

Do you really think that putting a jersey on to track plays on the sidelines is that important?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 07, 2020, 06:05:36 PM
If teams pay them the same and they get to practice the same, why would players care if they are on the PR or not?

Do you really think that putting a jersey on to track plays on the sidelines is that important?

The player wouldn't care but it makes it easier for the team to maintain the contract. A player can't then decide to leave on his own for another team. Additionally he may feel more secure on the IR then on the PR.

If teams are going to be allowed to pay essentially an ELC on the PR that doesn't seem in the spirit of the PR. Just increase the roster size which is the opposite of what they are doing by eliminating a #3 QB.

Also many # 3 QB's are the FG holders and several have played on ST's. That seems to have been happening more in recent years than in the past.

Players on the AR travel with the team for road games. PR players do not generally do that. There is both a functional purpose on the sideline and a learning advantage for them to do that. So a team can in theory pay a PR player full salary and let him travel with the team? Why make that a direction to manage a roster?

I'm not actually certain whether the rules ALLOW a PR player to travel with the team?

So yes I do that this is important.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 07, 2020, 06:34:38 PM
The player wouldn't care but it makes it easier for the team to maintain the contract. A player can't then decide to leave on his own for another team. Additionally he may feel more secure on the IR then on the PR.

If teams are going to be allowed to pay essentially an ELC on the PR that doesn't seem in the spirit of the PR. Just increase the roster size which is the opposite of what they are doing by eliminating a #3 QB.

Also many # 3 QB's are the FG holders and several have played on ST's. That seems to have been happening more in recent years than in the past.

Players on the AR travel with the team for road games. PR players do not generally do that. There is both a functional purpose on the sideline and a learning advantage for them to do that. So a team can in theory pay a PR player full salary and let him travel with the team? Why make that a direction to manage a roster?

I'm not actually certain whether the rules ALLOW a PR player to travel with the team?

So yes I do that this is important.
A player who decides to leave on his own isn't the kind of player you want on your team anyway. PR players talk with management before deciding to leave. The biggest risk is another team offering them a #2 QB spot if a starting QB goes down. If that happens, it's better for the player to take the #2 spot and I doubt most teams would stand in their way.

A guy who argues that we should keep QB3 on the IR shouldn't argue that paying QB3 on the PR isn't in the spirit of the PR rule. BTW: It is in the spirit, because it's in the rules.

#3 QB's won't be holding or playing special teams any more. Pretty easy to give the holding duties to another player.

You're right PR guys don't generally travel with the team, but I don't know of any rule that prevents them from doing it. Maybe QB3 won't get to go to away games. Not that big a deal.

I agree that it would have been better to simply add the new global player to the roster without removing QB3, but that's not what the CFL did. I think you're making way too much of it.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on January 07, 2020, 06:44:39 PM
A player who decides to leave on his own isn't the kind of player you want on your team anyway. PR players talk with management before deciding to leave. The biggest risk is another team offering them a #2 QB spot if a starting QB goes down. If that happens, it's better for the player to take the #2 spot and I doubt most teams would stand in their way.

A guy who argues that we should keep QB3 on the IR shouldn't argue that paying QB3 on the PR isn't in the spirit of the PR rule. BTW: It is in the spirit, because it's in the rules.

#3 QB's won't be holding or playing special teams any more. Pretty easy to give the holding duties to another player.

You're right PR guys don't generally travel with the team, but I don't know of any rule that prevents them from doing it. Maybe QB3 won't get to go to away games. Not that big a deal.

I agree that it would have been better to simply add the new global player to the roster without removing QB3, but that's not what the CFL did. I think you're making way too much of it.

Agree, a lot of the rule changes are the result of a compromise between the CFLPA and the team owners negotiating a complex CBA under time constraints, thus the final results are not always neatly packaged and often don't make much sense.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 07, 2020, 06:54:42 PM
A player who decides to leave on his own isn't the kind of player you want on your team anyway. PR players talk with management before deciding to leave. The biggest risk is another team offering them a #2 QB spot if a starting QB goes down. If that happens, it's better for the player to take the #2 spot and I doubt most teams would stand in their way.

A guy who argues that we should keep QB3 on the IR shouldn't argue that paying QB3 on the PR isn't in the spirit of the PR rule. BTW: It is in the spirit, because it's in the rules.

#3 QB's won't be holding or playing special teams any more. Pretty easy to give the holding duties to another player.

You're right PR guys don't generally travel with the team, but I don't know of any rule that prevents them from doing it. Maybe QB3 won't get to go to away games. Not that big a deal.

I agree that it would have been better to simply add the new global player to the roster without removing QB3, but that's not what the CFL did. I think you're making way too much of it.

Not every player has the financial luxury of living on a PR salary. I wouldn't agree that's not the kind of player we wouldn't want due to not accepting a PR spot.

BTW part 2: Putting a player on the IR is no less a part of the rules than paying him full salary on the PR.

Obviously if he's not on the AR he isn't playing ST's. That's a silly point to make.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: The Zipp on January 07, 2020, 09:41:33 PM
Ambrosie just stated that teams can have three QB's in roster


 https://3downnation.com/2020/01/07/teams-will-be-allowed-to-have-three-qbs-on-roster-in-2019-ambrosie/amp/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__twitter_impression=true (https://3downnation.com/2020/01/07/teams-will-be-allowed-to-have-three-qbs-on-roster-in-2019-ambrosie/amp/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__twitter_impression=true)


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 07, 2020, 09:45:56 PM
Not every player has the financial luxury of living on a PR salary. I wouldn't agree that's not the kind of player we wouldn't want due to not accepting a PR spot.

BTW part 2: Putting a player on the IR is no less a part of the rules than paying him full salary on the PR.

Obviously if he's not on the AR he isn't playing ST's. That's a silly point to make.
We're not talking about every player, nor are we talking about the minimum PR salary.

Ambrosie just stated that teams can have three QB's in roster

BiB will be happy. Not sure how many teams will opt for a 3rd QB over a DI tho.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: RicoBeBlue on January 07, 2020, 10:05:12 PM
Ambrosie just stated that teams can have three QB's in roster


 https://3downnation.com/2020/01/07/teams-will-be-allowed-to-have-three-qbs-on-roster-in-2019-ambrosie/amp/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__twitter_impression=true (https://3downnation.com/2020/01/07/teams-will-be-allowed-to-have-three-qbs-on-roster-in-2019-ambrosie/amp/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__twitter_impression=true)

A quote out of that article...

"The new rule specifies a requirement of two quarterbacks, not a limit of two quarterbacks."

So really not much has changed.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: the paw on January 07, 2020, 10:45:42 PM
We're not talking about every player, nor are we talking about the minimum PR salary.

BiB will be happy. Not sure how many teams will opt for a 3rd QB over a DI tho.

That's the easter egg in his comment.  The rule changes how many QBs are exempt from the ratio, if any.  Given this statement, the new veteran and naturalized Canadian status for some Americans, and the global status, the rules regarding ratio are going to be completely overhauled.

And given the recent interview with Walters in the Sun, and other media reports, they still haven't nailed down the language.  This is real shoot from the hip stuff from Ambrosie


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: gobombersgo on January 07, 2020, 11:34:56 PM
A quote out of that article...

"The new rule specifies a requirement of two quarterbacks, not a limit of two quarterbacks."

So really not much has changed.
Well, it looks like things have changed. If teams want to dress a 3rd QB then it would probably be at the expense of a DI db or linebacker.

Teams may not do that for every game and may end up having the 3rd QB as the game day scratch.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on January 08, 2020, 12:44:53 AM
Well, it looks like things have changed. If teams want to dress a 3rd QB then it would probably be at the expense of a DI db or linebacker.

Teams may not do that for every game and may end up having the 3rd QB as the game day scratch.

That makes sense, if the starter goes down teams just have to make it through the game with a single QB, not really a big deal.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 08, 2020, 07:39:15 AM
Well, it looks like things have changed. If teams want to dress a 3rd QB then it would probably be at the expense of a DI db or linebacker.

Teams may not do that for every game and may end up having the 3rd QB as the game day scratch.

That's what I said in post #1!   :D :D :D   5 pages later...

So my original question (that no one answered specifically, especially given Ambrosie's clarification) still stands: will a dressed 3rd QB, rostered as a QB, rostered as a DI, count as a QB for the "one and only one QB must be on field for every play"?  Based on Ambrosie's statement, I'm pretty sure the answer will be "yes".  Otherwise it would be pretty stupid.

Ok, so that would mean we're all pretty much agreed any dressed 3rd QB would take up a valuable DI spot.  That makes it pretty unlikely any team will dress a 3rd, unless perhaps they thought their #1 was already iffy-injured.

It doesn't happen that often where the starter and backup are both injured but it does happen.

Ssk - Jun 13, 2019 - Zach Collaros & Cody Fajardo injured - Isaac Harker finished the game - Fajardo did return to run the short yardage offence. Collaros missed most of the season & Fajardo started the next game.

Thanks so much Junkie!  That is waay more instances that I had guessed from memory!  So 7 times in 20 years is basically a third of CFL seasons will see a 3rd QB needed.  Well, as some said, maybe not critically needed if the #1 can come back in hobbling.  And that this happened once in '19 (I had forgotten!!) should add to the trepidation everyone should be feeling about this Ambrosie move.

I don't look at it in terms of number of games played, I look at it in terms of how many games will be "ruined" per entire season if only 2 QBs dress.  Even if it's not my team, I'm watching the game and I'll be empathizing for the screwed team just as I was in the MTL/SSK half-game in '19.

I haven't seen one person that's for this rule.  ???

Yes, one.  Ambrosie.  I lurk on 4 different team fan forums and I have seen a ton of moaning, and zero ZERO people say "this is a great idea!".  It's really the dumbest CFL rule change in forever.

I think it's a dumb rule, but the sky isn't falling. Most NFL teams only carry 2 QBs on game day rosters. It hasn't hurt them much.

Not sure how true that is, but the Eagles/Seahawks game almost saw a 3rd QB come in for the Eagles after Wentz went down early and the 2nd guy was hobbling around like Streveler.  The booth people said Eagles did have a 3rd QB dressed.

Also, the cfl had what 8 of it?s 9 starting QBs hurt this year.

CFL had 9 of 9 starting QBs hurt this year.  Actually, if you included replacements getting injured, I think it's 11 of 9 (or more!)!!  It's insanity.  And you can't say it's a fluke, because a few years ago we basically had the same thing (the Willy injury year?).

This is all I can think of, and it's a stretch. Like someone else said, Ambrosie follows the wishes of the owners so this can't be just his hair-brained scheme.

Pretty sure the only justification offered is to reduce the cost of owning a CFL team so he could sell the Als, find good buyers for TOR and BC, and get the Maritimes going.  And get another of his glorious GLOBs on the field.  I doubt any of the non-tirefire team GMs/owners like this new rule.

What $$ is saved by this asinine move?  Well, we go from 3rd QB to no-3QB + GLOB.  So say $150+0=150 to $0+60=60, or $90k saved.  What would the clearly better choice of keeping the 3rd QB have cost?  $150+60 vs the 2018 $150, or $60k more.  So all this nonsense is to save $60k if they had kept all things equal and just added +1 more GLOB to AR!  Argh!!

The CFL has been here before. Back in the old days,there were 2 QB's on every roster. A player, usually who'd played QB in high school or college would be chosen by each team to learn a few plays and go in if both real QB's went down. Pretty much guaranteed a loss, but so does being forced to use a 3rd string QB with very limited reps

As for saving money... I doubt that's the reason it was done and I doubt it will save much if anything. 3rd string QB's will still want more than minimum PR dollars to stick around. The global player gets league minimum.

At least if you're onto your 3rd QB due to injuries, you get to see what your #3 is capable of.  Even if all fans know you're going to lose, they at least get the fun of seeing a new guy, and possibly being pleasantly surprised.  Many current and past stars got their first major reps in this very situation, no?  Didn't Mike Reilly get his first chance to shine coming in as the #3 in BC?

If you have no dressed #3 and AH or DA#1 comes in to be QB then everyone in the stadium will get up and go home.  It will be a bloodbath.  In fact, you could have many more injuries because the O will be in complete disarray and shambles.  OL and blockers will get hurt as the other team rushes 12.  The "QB" will get sacked so much they'll get killed.

And how on earth do you magically give AH or DA a OC-speaker/mic'd helmet?  You can't.  Does AH or DA fit in Nichols or Strev's helmet?  Maybe not.  Is a bad-fitting helmet a player safety issue?  Almost certainly.  So no speaker and bad helmet fit, what's the OC going to do, send smoke signals from the spotter's booth?  Insanity.

Even worse: now teams are sorely tempted to get their hurt #1 back in the game prematurely should the #2 go down!  Not every #2 is Strev and can play with a broken ankle and tibula and six broken ribs!  ;)  But you can bet both the HC and QB#1 will feel intense pressure to get #1 back in the game...

Has anyone thought this through?  This will be the bush of all bush leagues should a double-QB injury occur in '20.  1 in 3 chance... you betting your players' safety and game outcome on that?  If this happens, you'll see this rule reversed the very next day.

OK, if we're truly stuck with this lemon situation for many years, here are some great ways to make some lemonade:

1. Run, don't walk, and obtain a GLOB QB!  If you're forced to AR and dress 2 GLOBs and for every team that basically means 1 (if you're WPG) or 2 GLOBs (nearly all other teams) sit on their bench all game, then use one of those forced bench-warmers as your last-ditch 3rd QB solution?  Not only does it not cost you a DI, but you get that dressed QB for ELC.  Sure, they'll probably suck, but at least they'll have a speaker-helmet that fits and throw better than AH and DA!  (You can still carry your "real" #3 development guy on the PR.)

2. If you can't get a GLOB QB, get a NAT QB!  Again, you save a DI.  All you lose there is a no-name NAT LB who just plays ST.  Downside is a NAT QB will cost more than a GLOB QB.  But at least you have a real QB, real helmet, ready if #1 and #2 go down.  Hmmm.... what if this is Ambrosie's ulterior motive he's been hiding: slowly making NAT QBs more attractive...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 08, 2020, 07:41:47 AM
The 3down link has a Scribd-type online viewable version of the new CBA, but you can't download it, and that viewer sucks rocks.  I'm not hitting down-arrow 100 times to try to find where they talk about QBs!!

Can anyone find a link where you can download the entire CBA in a PDF?  cfldb has the old version from 2014:
https://cfldb.ca/cba/
But none of the links seem to go to a place to download the new 2018 CBA?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Jesse on January 08, 2020, 12:10:11 PM
The 3down link has a Scribd-type online viewable version of the new CBA, but you can't download it, and that viewer sucks rocks.  I'm not hitting down-arrow 100 times to try to find where they talk about QBs!!

Can anyone find a link where you can download the entire CBA in a PDF?  cfldb has the old version from 2014:
https://cfldb.ca/cba/
But none of the links seem to go to a place to download the new 2018 CBA?


It hasn't been released to the public, has it?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 08, 2020, 02:43:49 PM
I doubt teams will consider dressing a # 3 QB as a DI. That seems like Ambrosie trying to sidestep the real result of the 2 QB change.

Finding a Global QB? Laughable. Finding a Canadian QB for 9 teams? DOA.

1. Roster size remains the same.
2. An extra global player is added
3. One less QB as a result

That's the direct correlation any way Ambrosie wants to smooth talk it.

It will be interesting to see what teams do and whether global players make a greater impact in 2020. Hansen did fairly well but he was the 2nd overall pick. I wonder how fans in other cities felt about the players they had.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: gobombersgo on January 08, 2020, 03:26:40 PM
I wonder how fans in other cities felt about the players they had.
Teams would be smart to just look for Global players that can contribute on special teams. A lot of teams had receivers that just stood on the sidelines.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 08, 2020, 03:35:24 PM
Ambrose doesn't say if the 3rd QB will be designated as a QB (Most Likely IMO) or is just another player who is subject to the ratio.

If he's subject to the ratio, carry a Canuck as the 3rd QB so you don't use a DI spot. No, there aren't enough to go around. Yes, some teams will get an advantage.

If he's designated as a QB, then he takes a backup Canadian's spot because the rules as they were written, defined the maximum number of imports and DI's outside the QB designation. You use Roster size - QB's - imports - DI's - Globals to come up with the number of NI's.

Interestingly, the CFL.CA has a different take on the rules than the commish. They say (https://www.cfl.ca/game-rule-ratio/)


Game Rule Ratio

Each team may have a maximum of 46 players, including 2 players who shall be identified as quarterbacks and 44 other players, of whom not more than 20 may be American players.

Each team must establish a reserve roster of 1 player.
Roster Breakdown
Nationals    Global    Americans    Quarterbacks    Reserve    Total
Min. 21    Min. 2    Max. 20            2                    1              46

Of the 46 players named to the roster, each team may dress an active roster of 45 players, broken down as follows:

    Maximum of 2 QBs (no designation)
    Maximum of 20 American players (4 of which must be identified as designated Americans)
    Minimum of 21 National players
    Minimum of 2 Global players


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 08, 2020, 03:44:28 PM
Teams would be smart to just look for Global players that can contribute on special teams. A lot of teams had receivers that just stood on the sidelines.

I mentioned that at times last season. Having a global that can come in as LB or DB has more of a chance of being an ST player. Hansen played on ST's and saw defensive reps as a DE.

I wouldn't say he was more effective than Roh might have been on defense. However Hansen and Kongbo allowed us to change how we used the ratio and our DI strategy.

How many of the global players that were on rosters last year return across the league. No doubt Hansen will return. Whether many that were on other teams AR's can be determined since so few had much time on the field.

Global players on PR's last year is even more up in the air. We'll have to see how many return or move to other teams. Some may be activated as the 2nd player on the AR this year. Fans that attended practices across the league might have more direct knowledge of how these players looked.

OTOH a worst case scenario is that we see a near clean sweep of 2019 global players with a bunch of new faces. I say worst case because that would indicate a failure in year 1 of CFL 2.0.

I hope that isn't the case but it's what I expect at the moment.

Re the Canadian QB as the # 3 idea: I'm not in support of that unless he can contribute on ST's. Otherwise you've eliminated an actual Canadian that plays on ST's. That all assumes you can actually find a Canadian QB.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 08, 2020, 04:05:21 PM
Re the Canadian QB as the # 3 idea: I'm not in support of that unless he can contribute on ST's. Otherwise you've eliminated an actual Canadian that plays on ST's. That all assumes you can actually find a Canadian QB.
You'd rather use a DI spot for the 3rd QB? DI's are worth more than the worst NI on the roster and that's they guy they'd replace.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 08, 2020, 04:09:57 PM
You'd rather use a DI spot for the 3rd QB? DI's are worth more than the worst NI on the roster and that's they guy they'd replace.

No I'm not in support of that idea either and I believe I said so in an earlier post. The only exception is whether that 3rd QB did actually play well on ST's. Even then a DI in another position would more likely be involved in more actual game reps than just a cover team player.

I've made my argument that a # 3 QB on an AR has some benefit on some teams: holder, ST player, injury insurance and travel with team on road games.

The question is whether a 2nd global player ( the trade off to another QB ) offers more benefit short or long term is the unknown.

Based on the non stats of nearly all global players last year, expecting a 2nd global to show something is up in the air.

Ultimately will have to see what the 2020 group looks like. We may see a PR player being added to the AR or we may see more of a clean sweep.

Not sure what to expect since these are names only that most of us have never even seen in practice.

I'd like to think that a year on a PR that those players improved and some will be activated and make contributions in some way. But I'll have to see it before I automatically believe it.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 08, 2020, 04:14:28 PM
For what's worth I took a quick look at all rosters trying to find some stats for global players. At this point rosters are mostly merged and combined PR players with AR players. Can't tell which were PR players or actually released at the end of the year.

In any case the breakdown was mostly receivers, a couple of K's, LB's, DB, OL or DL.

Could find any receiver with even 1 reception. A couple of LB's had a few ST DT's

Obviously receivers may have may have contributed without specific stats. Blocking or on ST's. That said I would have hoped for more than what I found.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 09, 2020, 11:59:15 AM
It hasn't been released to the public, has it?

But that link above gives the entire new CGA in a web-viewable Scribd-type format.  That's public!  I just want a way to get the whole thing in one searchable file where I can skip to whatever page I want by typing the page # in.

Finding a Global QB? Laughable. Finding a Canadian QB for 9 teams? DOA.

The only question is, is the best GLOB QB we can find, no matter how bad, more valuable dressed on game day than a crap GLOB LB/WR/STer that never steps on the field?  Of course he'd be!!  He'd give you a CYA option should both your QBs go down!  He'd have a QB helmet and armband and have practised and know some playcalls.

Or put it another way, is a bad GLOB QB with QB gear and practice reps, going to make a better QB than AH or D.Adams?  I'm pretty sure he would!!  Because that's the scenario you're looking at if ever both our QBs go down!

Again, it costs us nothing to hire a GLOB QB!  We're not playing our 2nd (or 3rd now) GLOB anyhow.  They all get ELC so cost doesn't enter into it.  And you get to dress them "for free" on the AR for game day!

It matters not whether all 9 teams can find a GLOB QB, I'm saying we should find a GLOB QB to exploit this hole in the new rules and get ourselves a "free" 3rd, dressed, non-DI-eating, QB!

In this new setup, a GLOB QB would be even more valuable than a NAT QB, as a NAT QB still eats up one of your 21 NAT AR which you could have used for a good ST guy like Gauthier, Rush, Miles or Miller.  Again, the GLOB spots are like free bingo card spaces.  You gain immensely if you use them for a guy who actually sees the field.  And a GLOB QB would see the field if you ever lose #1 and #2, which occurs in about 33% of seasons to one team.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 09, 2020, 02:04:26 PM
Finding talent is always difficult and finding it at QB probably the most difficult. I'd think there would be a greater probability of finding global talent at virtually any other position than at QB.

I'd be looking for a kicker to develop and as a back up to Medlock. Some guy with European soccer experience that can translate to football.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 09, 2020, 02:30:13 PM
Would a Global QB be worse than the NHL Emergency Goalie? 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 09, 2020, 05:57:39 PM
Would a Global QB be worse than the NHL Emergency Goalie? 

Maybe not but as a QB he can only play QB whereas a different global might be a good ST or back up guy like Hansen.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 10, 2020, 08:13:35 AM
Maybe not but as a QB he can only play QB whereas a different global might be a good ST or back up guy like Hansen.

I watched every CFL game in 2019 (as usual), and besides Hansen I recall seeing maybe 2 other GLOBs actually in on a game rep.  That includes STs!!  Since 1 dressed GLOB 99% of the time doesn't see the field (except Hansen), and now teams will have (forced) 2 dressed GLOBs, who will 99.99% of the time not see the field there is literally zero downside to finding a serviceable GLOB QB and dressing him as your 2nd AR GLOB!  99% chance he won't see the field either... but if he does, the team that made this move will look like geniuses.

If all of these other countries are playing grid-iron football, then surely there are QBs on these teams who are at least as good as Brohm.  Sign one of them.  Hell, even if they're a bit worse than Brohm, or even way worse than Brohm, they are still a better QB than D.Adams!!


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: gobombersgo on January 10, 2020, 01:47:27 PM
I watched every CFL game in 2019 (as usual), and besides Hansen I recall seeing maybe 2 other GLOBs actually in on a game rep.  That includes STs!!  Since 1 dressed GLOB 99% of the time doesn't see the field (except Hansen), and now teams will have (forced) 2 dressed GLOBs, who will 99.99% of the time not see the field there is literally zero downside to finding a serviceable GLOB QB and dressing him as your 2nd AR GLOB!  99% chance he won't see the field either... but if he does, the team that made this move will look like geniuses.

If all of these other countries are playing grid-iron football, then surely there are QBs on these teams who are at least as good as Brohm.  Sign one of them.  Hell, even if they're a bit worse than Brohm, or even way worse than Brohm, they are still a better QB than D.Adams!!

I'm not sure about QB but teams should be about to find Global players that can at minimum play special teams.

I think part of the problem from last year is that teams had to draft 2 Mexicans and but only 1 European. The reality is the best Global players are probably European players that are currently playing Division 1 ball in the States. That's where scouts should be looking for players.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 10, 2020, 02:53:29 PM
I watched every CFL game in 2019 (as usual), and besides Hansen I recall seeing maybe 2 other GLOBs actually in on a game rep.  That includes STs!!  Since 1 dressed GLOB 99% of the time doesn't see the field (except Hansen), and now teams will have (forced) 2 dressed GLOBs, who will 99.99% of the time not see the field there is literally zero downside to finding a serviceable GLOB QB and dressing him as your 2nd AR GLOB!  99% chance he won't see the field either... but if he does, the team that made this move will look like geniuses.

If all of these other countries are playing grid-iron football, then surely there are QBs on these teams who are at least as good as Brohm.  Sign one of them.  Hell, even if they're a bit worse than Brohm, or even way worse than Brohm, they are still a better QB than D.Adams!!


Maybe this year you'll have a better grasp of players capable of playing ST's versus a global QB.

That's just an absurd point of view. QB is the least likely position teams are going to find global QB talent. Teams struggle finding American QB talent.

Very few QB's have played on ST's and the new rule seems to prevent that now. So aside from possibly being the holder that global player would never see the field.

If teams can't find any other player ( LB, DB, receiver ) that can actually play ST's then what is the value of this global excercise by Ambrosie?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 10, 2020, 04:54:31 PM
Since the Globals are non-SMS hit players, they are freebies, whether they take game snaps or not... we got huge value out of Hansen last year, and probably again this year...  they should make Global players part of the Nat starting ratio... ;) (since *we* have one that could rotate in as a starter...)


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 10, 2020, 05:18:03 PM
Since the Globals are non-SMS hit players, they are freebies, whether they take game snaps or not... we got huge value out of Hansen last year, and probably again this year...  they should make Global players part of the Nat starting ratio... ;) (since *we* have one that could rotate in as a starter...)

Freebie's from an SMS point of view sure. Doesn't change the fact you'd like them to be able to do something like play ST's.

Each team has a depth chart. So by position you'd want to see where a given global might best be capable to add depth where we needed depth.

That might vary game to game based on injury. So a receiver or DB might the best choice.

Globals are SMS exempt but it's still salary against total cost of running the team. Two AR salaries and now 3 PR salaries is not chump change when teams struggle to run a profit.

Didn't they report the Als lost millions in 2018? How does adding 2 X $65K min and 3 PR players @ $750 / week help?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 11, 2020, 06:29:40 AM
Very few QB's have played on ST's and the new rule seems to prevent that now. So aside from possibly being the holder that global player would never see the field.

If teams can't find any other player ( LB, DB, receiver ) that can actually play ST's then what is the value of this global excercise by Ambrosie?

That's my whole point!  Even on ST I don't recall seeing more than 2 or 3 (including Hansen) GLOBs getting on-field game reps!!  They are just dressed, getting paid, and warming the bench all night!  They aren't playing at all!  Even on ST!  For some reason you seem to think that every ST play has a GLOB or two on the field for most teams.  It's not true!

What's the value of the GLOB exercise?  Optics and pipe dreams?  We're all still trying to figure it out.  Well, there was one upside, we got Hansen to lay out two Ticats in the GC!

Stats Junkie should look up the stats for all the GLOBs in '19.  I bet besides Hansen only 1 or 2 guys got any stat, including ST stats.  And if they did have a stat, it'll be at most "1" of something.

Will you agree with me that if 95% of the GLOBs never set foot on the field, that then it might make sense to have one be your spare, dressed, #3 QB?

Didn't they report the Als lost millions in 2018? How does adding 2 X $65K min and 3 PR players @ $750 / week help?

That's a darn good question, isn't it!!


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 11, 2020, 02:16:12 PM
That's my whole point!  Even on ST I don't recall seeing more than 2 or 3 (including Hansen) GLOBs getting on-field game reps!!  They are just dressed, getting paid, and warming the bench all night!  They aren't playing at all!  Even on ST!  For some reason you seem to think that every ST play has a GLOB or two on the field for most teams.  It's not true!

What's the value of the GLOB exercise?  Optics and pipe dreams?  We're all still trying to figure it out.  Well, there was one upside, we got Hansen to lay out two Ticats in the GC!

Stats Junkie should look up the stats for all the GLOBs in '19.  I bet besides Hansen only 1 or 2 guys got any stat, including ST stats.  And if they did have a stat, it'll be at most "1" of something.

Will you agree with me that if 95% of the GLOBs never set foot on the field, that then it might make sense to have one be your spare, dressed, #3 QB?

That's a darn good question, isn't it!!


The point is obvious. A QB will never see the field and those positions that I mentioned have some chance to do something on the field. Most likely ST's but possibly might be good enough as in game emergency subs etc.

How can we tell if 95% of Globals will never set foot on the field going into 2020? If that's true then there is even less value or expectation a # 3 QB would be any better than some kid pulled off the street.

It's like the last kid being picked in the park that nobody wants.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 11, 2020, 03:01:02 PM
It depends on what you think a #3 QB should be. If it's a cheap place holder who will never see the field, then a global would do, but not having one at all would do too. If it's a guy you're grooming, then you want the best and that's not a global or a Canadian for that matter.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 11, 2020, 03:14:14 PM
If year 2 doesn't generate some globals that can contribute then where is CFL 2.0 going?

In theory more effort has gone into finding greater talent for this season.

Hopefully teams find some players that can develop during the course of the year.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 11, 2020, 06:04:42 PM
The obvious answer that keeps getting overlooked is the Nat QB option.  While there may be one or two Nat QBs out there capable of competing for a starting job, and maybe a few more that might be able to land a backup role, there are at least 9 that could be a #3 arm on the roster.  Enough so that every team could roster a Nat QB, who could also hold for FG.  Allows for the opportunity to develop for a few years in a pro system with no pressure, before they convert to Rec / DB ;) . 

Wasn't Ambrosie supposed to do something like that after meeting with Bridge?



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 11, 2020, 09:45:29 PM
The obvious answer that keeps getting overlooked is the Nat QB option.  While there may be one or two Nat QBs out there capable of competing for a starting job, and maybe a few more that might be able to land a backup role, there are at least 9 that could be a #3 arm on the roster.  Enough so that every team could roster a Nat QB, who could also hold for FG.  Allows for the opportunity to develop for a few years in a pro system with no pressure, before they convert to Rec / DB ;) . 

Wasn't Ambrosie supposed to do something like that after meeting with Bridge?



A Nat QB is not an obvious something that is overlooked as much as you want that to be true. A few have tried to make CFL rosters and very few have had any success.

It's enough that they changed the rule so that if a Canadian QB does make a roster and starts he's part of the ratio equation.

Reducing the normal roster from 3 to 2 isn't going to make this any easier.

I had some hopes about O'Conner in Toronto. Will have to see if he survives staying on their AR.

Considering they may be sweeping house of QB's in Toronto that will help him in trying to win a spot. Depends on who they end up with in free agency.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 12, 2020, 05:17:17 AM
The obvious answer that keeps getting overlooked is the Nat QB option.

Yes, a NAT QB is the 2nd best choice as your dressed 3rd QB.  And it now becomes exceedingly more attractive than 1 or 2 years ago.  But it's not as good as a GLOB QB because you must sacrifice one of your NAT STer spots to dress that NAT QB.  If you think you can sacrifice a Rush or Gauthier, then it's worth a thought.  And I'd bet more than 1 team will go that route!  But the GLOB QB idea still means you sacrifice nothing at all.  Pure freebie!

You guys make it sound like the best GLOB QB playing over in Germany or Mexico or Finland or wherever at this very moment is total crap.  Is that really the case?  Why wouldn't a top-tier GLOB QB be at least as good as a low-tier NAT QB in a Canadian college?

And, no, I'm not thinking development (though he'd practice and he'd gain some anyhow): I'm thinking purely CYA 3rd string double-injury insurance rather than telling D.Adams to go throw the ball.  Again, how does making this play harm our team?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 12, 2020, 05:47:41 AM
We have Global players on the roster outside SMS, why not a Nat QB?  If they really want to be a QB (like the years Sinopoli wasted trying to be a QB instead of the leagues best Nat Rec), why not give them the opportunity?  Nat QB's are always behind Int QB's the same age because they haven't had the same number of years, or length of season Ints get.  Giving them a couple years of non-SMS backup role for development could be great for the league... make the 3rd QB a Not/Global min wage non-SMS spot...   


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 12, 2020, 10:45:32 AM
make the 3rd QB a Not/Global min wage non-SMS spot...   

Then you have the problem many have said: not enough talent to go around, so most teams will get stuck with nothing or crap.

I'm not looking to improve the CFL with my GLOB QB idea, I'm looking to gain a sneaky competitive advantage that no other team has thought of!

However, if you want to improve the whole CFL, and develop NAT/GLOB QB talent as a backup for the rare 2-injury situation (and possibly more if the kid has talent!), then your idea is a good one.  Given Ambrosie's predilections, I doubt it'll ever happen... it makes too much sense!  (And will cost an extra $65k, ooooh, oh no!)


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 12, 2020, 03:09:43 PM
We have Global players on the roster outside SMS, why not a Nat QB?  If they really want to be a QB (like the years Sinopoli wasted trying to be a QB instead of the leagues best Nat Rec), why not give them the opportunity?  Nat QB's are always behind Int QB's the same age because they haven't had the same number of years, or length of season Ints get.  Giving them a couple years of non-SMS backup role for development could be great for the league... make the 3rd QB a Not/Global min wage non-SMS spot...  

Inside or outside the SMS if the QB isn't good enough / better than others why put him on any roster.

That's why.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Jesse on January 12, 2020, 03:10:56 PM
We have Global players on the roster outside SMS, why not a Nat QB?  If they really want to be a QB (like the years Sinopoli wasted trying to be a QB instead of the leagues best Nat Rec), why not give them the opportunity?  Nat QB's are always behind Int QB's the same age because they haven't had the same number of years, or length of season Ints get.  Giving them a couple years of non-SMS backup role for development could be great for the league... make the 3rd QB a Not/Global min wage non-SMS spot...   

I haven't followed this debate at all because I'm not really interested in it. But I think the answer to this is that they don't want or care about a nat QB and this would be a waste of a spot.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 12, 2020, 04:06:42 PM
If a Canadian QB is good enough he'll earn a spot on the roster. We've seen a few get a fair chance.

Andrew Buckley a few years ago was beginning to look like he had upside. O'Conner in Toronto had a very good career at UBC.

Now that a starting Canadian QB also has a ratio advantage there is even less argument about coaches bias against them.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 12, 2020, 07:21:05 PM
Thank you everyone for making my points.

Nat QBs are at a disadvantage, and need help getting to the next level.

A 3rd string QB does not have to be as good as a starter, he is a backups' backup... so it is a place where you can have an inexpensive development player.

There does not have to be 9 Nat QB's capable of starting to allow every team to have a quality 3rd stringer with the right passport.  And if any of them can take it to the next level, or even better, become starters, then there is a ratio implication now.  Also, just because the player is on the depth chart at #3 doesn't mean he can't come into the game if he can do the job better than the guy pencilled in at #2...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 12, 2020, 07:38:50 PM
Thank you everyone for making my points.

Nat QBs are at a disadvantage, and need help getting to the next level.

A 3rd string QB does not have to be as good as a starter, he is a backups' backup... so it is a place where you can have an inexpensive development player.

There does not have to be 9 Nat QB's capable of starting to allow every team to have a quality 3rd stringer with the right passport.  And if any of them can take it to the next level, or even better, become starters, then there is a ratio implication now.  Also, just because the player is on the depth chart at #3 doesn't mean he can't come into the game if he can do the job better than the guy pencilled in at #2...

Who says a Canadian QB would be any less expensive than an import rookie QB? You might have had more of an argument if CFL rosters moved to this new 2 QB garbage.

He can't come into the game ahead of the # 2 QB if he's not on the AR.

I see on CFL.CA they are talking about O'Conner and how they like him. Considering the Argos may to decide in free agency who they sign, SMS may work in O'Conner's favor since he's already under contract.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 12, 2020, 07:44:08 PM
Who says a Canadian QB would be any less expensive than an import rookie QB? You might have had more of an argument if CFL rosters moved to this new 2 QB garbage.

He can't come into the game ahead of the # 2 QB if he's not on the AR.

I see on CFL.CA they are talking about O'Conner and how they like him. Considering the Argos may to decide in free agency who they sign, SMS may work in O'Conner's favor since he's already under contract.



My proposal was for a non-SMS min wage #3 Nat QB roster spot, like the roster spot for Globals.  I know most Nats would rather be a higher paid position player, sure, and after year 2, and they finish their ELC, they can switch positions.  But for those that want the chance to develop into a QB, this would be that opportunity.

It would be a voluntary spot that not every team would have to fill, but I think teams would take advantage of it.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 13, 2020, 12:36:36 AM
He can't come into the game ahead of the # 2 QB if he's not on the AR.

Aards/my idea is, with NAT or GLOB 3rd QB that they would be on the AR and dressed for games.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 13, 2020, 01:50:02 PM
My proposal was for a non-SMS min wage #3 Nat QB roster spot, like the roster spot for Globals.  I know most Nats would rather be a higher paid position player, sure, and after year 2, and they finish their ELC, they can switch positions.  But for those that want the chance to develop into a QB, this would be that opportunity.

It would be a voluntary spot that not every team would have to fill, but I think teams would take advantage of it.

Like I said, who says a # 3 rookie import QB isn't on a minimum ELC. Excluding from the SMS is 1 thing but that's a different discussion.

Regardless. Even outside of SMS it's a cost to the bottom line. Some teams have difficulty turning any profit.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 13, 2020, 02:12:09 PM
Like I said, who says a # 3 rookie import QB isn't on a minimum ELC. Excluding from the SMS is 1 thing but that's a different discussion.

Regardless. Even outside of SMS it's a cost to the bottom line. Some teams have difficulty turning any profit.

Its for development of potential Nat QBs, something almost as rare as a Global player.  Something that is great for the league's optics in its main market.  So the non-SMS part is again, voluntary, but I am sure every team would take advantage of an insurance QB/holder available for a minimal amount of non-SMS money. 

I'm sure 1 league min salary isn't going to hurt the financial viability of any team...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 13, 2020, 03:39:43 PM
Its for development of potential Nat QBs, something almost as rare as a Global player.  Something that is great for the league's optics in its main market.  So the non-SMS part is again, voluntary, but I am sure every team would take advantage of an insurance QB/holder available for a minimal amount of non-SMS money. 

I'm sure 1 league min salary isn't going to hurt the financial viability of any team...

IMO few fans care about developing a Canadian QB. Fans want a good QB regardless of where he's from. It's a simple fact of supply and demand.  Canadian players are behind the eight ball in college coaching, funding and competition.

Developing an import QB's is a long enough process and not often successful.

Your idea for developing a Canadian QB is floated every off season. There are reasons why it hasn't happened.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 13, 2020, 03:52:06 PM
IMO few fans care about developing a Canadian QB. Fans want a good QB regardless of where he's from. It's a simple fact of supply and demand.  Canadian players are behind the eight ball in college coaching, funding and competition.

Developing an import QB's is a long enough process and not often successful.

Your idea for developing a Canadian QB is floated every off season. There are reasons why it hasn't happened.



People want good Olinemen, regardless their passport.  And Dlinemen.  And FS.  And 5th Rec.  And Kicker...  but it is the Canadian football league.

The most important position on any team is the QB.  How does it not make sense to incentivize the development of a Canadian in that spot?   

Lack of talent able to develop into starters?  We don't bemoan the fact that some teams seem to develop star players at any position, while others don't. There are only one or two starting Canadian MLB, one or two star Canadian Rec, star RB'd. etc. for "skilled" positions, but no whining that the teams that draft/develop players at those spots have any unfair advantage in the talent pool...

If we are not interested in developing Canadian players at ALL positions, we should just throw in the ratio completely.  Or reduce the ratio to Linemen and Kickers, and maybe backups and special teams.   



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 13, 2020, 04:38:22 PM
People want good Olinemen, regardless their passport.  And Dlinemen.  And FS.  And 5th Rec.  And Kicker...  but it is the Canadian football league.

The most important position on any team is the QB.  How does it not make sense to incentivize the development of a Canadian in that spot?  

Lack of talent able to develop into starters?  We don't bemoan the fact that some teams seem to develop star players at any position, while others don't. There are only one or two starting Canadian MLB, one or two star Canadian Rec, star RB'd. etc. for "skilled" positions, but no whining that the teams that draft/develop players at those spots have any unfair advantage in the talent pool...

If we are not interested in developing Canadian players at ALL positions, we should just throw in the ratio completely.  Or reduce the ratio to Linemen and Kickers, and maybe backups and special teams.   



That's the reality right there. The majority of fans just want the best players. Ratio is a subset. I've previously mentioned that many fans can't even identify which players are Canadians. If they don't care about the passport of an OL why would they care about a QB?

However, clearly you don't understand the principle of supply and demand. QB is the highest skill set requirement.

In TC we bring in about 20 receivers and 20 DB's that might only be competing for 1 or 2 roster spots.

Success is not a straight line. All the training / development in the world won't guarantee every QB will succeed given time.  You don't look to develop those that appear closer to the bottom than the top.




Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 13, 2020, 05:28:53 PM
That's the reality right there. The majority of fans just want the best players. Ratio is a subset. I've previously mentioned that many fans can't even identify which players are Canadians. If they don't care about the passport of an OL why would they care about a QB?

However, clearly you don't understand the principle of supply and demand. QB is the highest skill set requirement.

In TC we bring in about 20 receivers and 20 DB's that might only be competing for 1 or 2 roster spots.

Success is not a straight line. All the training / development in the world won't guarantee every QB will succeed given time.  You don't look to develop those that appear closer to the bottom than the top.

Until we make a change that will

a: allow Nat QB's the ability to "catch up" in development to their Int counterparts, and
b: incentivize teams to want to have a Nat QB

then we will never know if it is a fools errand to try and develop Nat QB's


We "waste" a DI spot on Medlock when most teams employ a Nat kicker(s).  Teams are incentivized to have Nat P/K and most do, and players like Paredes and Hajrullahu get some extra time to develop into stars... (at the expense of the WFC ;) )


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 13, 2020, 06:11:10 PM
Until we make a change that will

a: allow Nat QB's the ability to "catch up" in development to their Int counterparts, and
b: incentivize teams to want to have a Nat QB

then we will never know if it is a fools errand to try and develop Nat QB's


We "waste" a DI spot on Medlock when most teams employ a Nat kicker(s).  Teams are incentivized to have Nat P/K and most do, and players like Paredes and Hajrullahu get some extra time to develop into stars... (at the expense of the WFC ;) )

Absurd.

A. Requires better coaching and competition at the university level. 33M population versus 350M population is the difference. Attendance equals revenue equals better training. There is no time to spend on developing  more QB's that teams are already doing. There is no unlimited budget or unlimited coaching staff to work all day every day with a # 3 or # 4 QB

b. Pipe dream. Teams want a good QB. If it turns out to be a Canadian that's all the incentive you need. It's the only incentive that has meaning.

Bombers aren't the only team using a DI spot for a kicker. They do that because they are the best kickers in the league. Kickers are easier to find than QB's but still not a slam dunk either.

Those that are exceptional like other very talented Canadians end up in the NFL. Jon Ryan comes to mind. This year Maver and Lirim H are getting NFL opportunities.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Sir Blue and Gold on January 13, 2020, 07:39:42 PM
Until we make a change that will

a: allow Nat QB's the ability to "catch up" in development to their Int counterparts, and
b: incentivize teams to want to have a Nat QB

then we will never know if it is a fools errand to try and develop Nat QB's



We "waste" a DI spot on Medlock when most teams employ a Nat kicker(s).  Teams are incentivized to have Nat P/K and most do, and players like Paredes and Hajrullahu get some extra time to develop into stars... (at the expense of the WFC ;) )

The is so arse backwards. Until pro ready QB prospects come out of the CIS teams won't try to develop national QBs. There have been a few Canadians get a shot because they were good enough to deserve one. The end.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 14, 2020, 03:03:06 PM
The next 'CFL chance' NI QB will come out of the NCAA, just like a lot of the best NI's in the CFL do. They have the same advantages as the Americans coming out of the NCAA.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: GCn19 on January 14, 2020, 03:35:31 PM
The next 'CFL chance' NI QB will come out of the NCAA, just like a lot of the best NI's in the CFL do. They have the same advantages as the Americans coming out of the NCAA.

I agree. USports and minor football in Canada are quite simply a joke in comparison to the US for developing QBs.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 14, 2020, 03:45:44 PM
The is so arse backwards. Until pro ready QB prospects come out of the CIS teams won't try to develop national QBs. There have been a few Canadians get a shot because they were good enough to deserve one. The end.

Pro ready QB's won't come out of the CIS, the league does not play at that level, the coaching is not at that level, and the talent is not at that level.  The ability to develop might be, but as people have suggested, any that have clearly evident potential probably went to the NCAA.  This is a way to allow players to take the next step.  A 2 year apprenticeship program that may lead to something, if nothing else, having a QB that played at the local University on the roster might put a few extra butts in the seats...

The next 'CFL chance' NI QB will come out of the NCAA, just like a lot of the best NI's in the CFL do. They have the same advantages as the Americans coming out of the NCAA.

The issue isn't the NCAA vs. CIS training, but rather the pre college work.  Nat QB's have far fewer lifetime reps than Ints.  Hence, regardless their NCAA/CIS time, they are behind Int QBs the same age.  A couple extra years makes a huge difference.  This would be a way to "catch up" for those QBs that either got only CIS college training, or those that got NCAA training but still need some seasoning.  

Yes, a "natural" talent can emerge that is good with only a minimum amount of college work.  But reps are everything to a QB, making the game slow down and having things be instinctual is the difference between success and failure.  Giving OUR Nat QB's a helping hand to bring them up to the Int level of training by having a Nat QB in a free space on the roster doesn't hurt anyone, and can help a huge amount.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Sir Blue and Gold on January 14, 2020, 04:03:59 PM
Pro ready QB's won't come out of the CIS, the league does not play at that level, the coaching is not at that level, and the talent is not at that level.  The ability to develop might be, but as people have suggested, any that have clearly evident potential probably went to the NCAA.  This is a way to allow players to take the next step.  A 2 year apprenticeship program that may lead to something, if nothing else, having a QB that played at the local University on the roster might put a few extra butts in the seats...

So then why do you want to try to incentivize them to be on a CFL roster? Canadian QBs have got a look when they have deserved one. In fact, the QB position is the only position in the entire CFL which is a completely even playing field (as it relates to roster rules, anyway). The best people win the jobs. What is unfair about that? Why do we need to create even more rules to force Canadian players on rosters? I've seen enough "shouldn't be there but has to" players in the CFL to last me a lifetime. I certainly don't need to see it at the games hardest and most important position (from a player and entertainment standpoint).


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 14, 2020, 05:00:41 PM
So then why do you want to try to incentivize them to be on a CFL roster? Canadian QBs have got a look when they have deserved one. In fact, the QB position is the only position in the entire CFL which is a completely even playing field (as it relates to roster rules, anyway). The best people win the jobs. What is unfair about that? Why do we need to create even more rules to force Canadian players on rosters? I've seen enough "shouldn't be there but has to" players in the CFL to last me a lifetime. I certainly don't need to see it at the games hardest and most important position (from a player and entertainment standpoint).

I guess we should just throw away the ratio then...

Giving a Nat QB a couple years in a "free spot" on the active roster would be a great way to give Nat QB's a fighting chance, and give teams that extra arm in case of emergency.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Sir Blue and Gold on January 14, 2020, 05:41:46 PM
I guess we should just throw away the ratio then...

Giving a Nat QB a couple years in a "free spot" on the active roster would be a great way to give Nat QB's a fighting chance, and give teams that extra arm in case of emergency.

You take a guy that doesn't really belong and hope that a few years of "free spot" treatment will get him up to a rough equivalent of what a fresh American rookie QB possesses...but rookie QBs are almost never ready to start either. That takes a few more years on top of that. And so now you're proposing what is probably a 4 - 7 year commitment to a guy who never really belonged anyway just to see if he might have what it takes. We know most don't - even highly touted American QB prospects fail more often than not. It's just the way it goes. I'll leave it up to you to decide if that's a smart idea, Aardvark.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 14, 2020, 05:51:59 PM
You take a guy that doesn't really belong and hope that a few years of "free spot" treatment will get him up to a rough equivalent of what a fresh American rookie QB possesses...but rookie QBs are almost never ready to start either. That takes a few more years on top of that. And so now you're proposing what is probably a 4 - 7 year commitment to a guy who never really belonged anyway just to see if he might have what it takes. We know most don't - even highly touted American QB prospects fail more often than not. It's just the way it goes. I'll leave it up to you to decide if that's a smart idea, Aardvark.

If, after 2 years, he is the same as a Int rookie coming in, and can displace him for the backup role, awesome.  If not, he's had 2 years of pro ball, and can transition to another position... in the meantime, the team has an extra arm for practice, a potential holder that isn't an injury risk, and an emergency 3rd QB that knows the system.  But yeah, those are all bad things...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 14, 2020, 06:26:33 PM
If, after 2 years, he is the same as a Int rookie coming in, and can displace him for the backup role, awesome.  If not, he's had 2 years of pro ball, and can transition to another position... in the meantime, the team has an extra arm for practice, a potential holder that isn't an injury risk, and an emergency 3rd QB that knows the system.  But yeah, those are all bad things...

So you want to spend 2 years trying to develop a QB only to find he fails. Then you want and expect he can actually transition / wants to transition to another another position for another couple of years?

That extra arm in practice is taking away reps from an import that has a greater chance of success.

Poor Business Practice 101 Or Tinfoil Hat Ideas. Get a copy and read it please.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Sir Blue and Gold on January 14, 2020, 06:43:47 PM
If, after 2 years, he is the same as a Int rookie coming in, and can displace him for the backup role, awesome.  If not, he's had 2 years of pro ball, and can transition to another position... in the meantime, the team has an extra arm for practice, a potential holder that isn't an injury risk, and an emergency 3rd QB that knows the system.  But yeah, those are all bad things...

Hahahaha... man, where do you come up with this stuff?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 15, 2020, 05:26:48 AM
So you want to spend 2 years trying to develop a QB only to find he fails. Then you want and expect he can actually transition / wants to transition to another another position for another couple of years?

That extra arm in practice is taking away reps from an import that has a greater chance of success.

Poor Business Practice 101 Or Tinfoil Hat Ideas. Get a copy and read it please.

Again, not taking reps from anyone, because there are onky two spots for QB;s, he would be 3rd.  Again, this spot would be attractive to guys that really want to play out their QB opportunity, like Sinopoli.  And, while QB has a huge learning curve, other positions, especially on O, will be familiar to a QB, making the transition quick, like Sinopoli. 

Its a min wage spot, that give the team a little more depth.  Even just the ability to be a consistent holder would be enough....


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 15, 2020, 10:58:49 AM
Why do we need to create even more rules to force Canadian players on rosters? I've seen enough "shouldn't be there but has to" players in the CFL to last me a lifetime.

That's the CFL!  That's the ratio?  Which one of you guys said it (paraphrasing): The ratio and how teams manage it and work within the limitations of (most) NATs being sub-par compared to IMPs is a huge part of what makes the CFL so fun to follow!  That guy was spot on.  It's intriguing watching KW or C.Jones having to find a way to have a Hurl hurt the team the least.  Or Hecht...

A huge part of why teams will win in the CFL is how well they draft and FA NAT talent without blowing the budget, and develop them into legit contributors even though they are "only" Canadians.  Look at Demski... a NAT guy shrugged off by SSK and developed into our best receiver (and RB threat!) this year!  If you had no ratio, Demski would've never had a chance to shine.

WPG won it all because we best utilized and developed our NATs.  I can't think of a single starting NAT (incl ST!) that didn't contribute a big play this year.  Seriously.  What other team can say that?  Not HAM.  Besides Jones and Ackie, I couldn't even name another of their NATs that made a noticeable impact in the GC.

I don't think anyone here wants NFL-lite (a CFL with no ratio).

As for the 3rd QB ideas (NAT or GLOB) from Aards & I... you poo-pooers never answer the question: what do you want to see, what will happen if a team's 2-QBs both go down?  What on earth do you propose?  They don't let you just forfeit.  I'd sure as heck want whatever GLOB or NAT QB the CFL can muster to come on and play rather than D.Adams with no QB helmet, wristband/chart or practice reps!!  Please, none of you negative nancies has ever answered!  What do you see happening?  Explain how what you see happening is better than a NAT/GLOB 3rd-stringer?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 15, 2020, 02:02:07 PM
BS. We answer this question over and over every off season. We don't want to create another special classification, roster exception or some SMS exemption for a Canadian QB.

For that matter I doubt many people wanted this global set of exemptions either.

Having a roster with 3 QB's which included that developmental QB was fine until Ambrosie screwed that up. In the past many teams rotated or kept a # 4 QB sitting on the PR and at times on the 1 game IR.

What do we want now? We want the best # 3 QB available that will accept a role on the PR.

What we want is a couple of you posters to quit floating the same idea painted different colors. It's the same dead horse. Bury it.

You asked. That's the answer.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 15, 2020, 03:15:04 PM
We have too many special groups already. Imports, Non-imports, Globals, DI's, QB's and the new I/NI. We don't need an NIQB (Pronounced NI-Cab for Techno) too.

If 2 QB's go down 'in-game' then another player who likely played QB in HS or College goes in for the rest of the game. The 3rd string QB, that most teams will carry, will start the next game. If the top 2 are badly hurt more QB's will be brought in or taken from another teams PR. Based on history, this will happen less than 1% of the time.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 15, 2020, 04:09:54 PM
BS. We answer this question over and over every off season. We don't want to create another special classification, roster exception or some SMS exemption for a Canadian QB.

For that matter I doubt many people wanted this global set of exemptions either.

Having a roster with 3 QB's which included that developmental QB was fine until Ambrosie screwed that up. In the past many teams rotated or kept a # 4 QB sitting on the PR and at times on the 1 game IR.

What do we want now? We want the best # 3 QB available that will accept a role on the PR.

What we want is a couple of you posters to quit floating the same idea painted different colors. It's the same dead horse. Bury it.

You asked. That's the answer.

So, in game replacement if 2 QB's go down?  How does having a #3QB dressed as a Nat/Global stop you from having "the best # 3 QB available that will accept a role on the PR."?  Especially if the 3rd QB Nat/Global is outside SMS? 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 15, 2020, 05:03:45 PM
So, in game replacement if 2 QB's go down?  How does having a #3QB dressed as a Nat/Global stop you from having "the best # 3 QB available that will accept a role on the PR."?  Especially if the 3rd QB Nat/Global is outside SMS? 

If both the # 1 and # 2 QB go down the team is going to lose that game. Regardless. If the league has decided to NOT have a 3rd QB on the roster, what logic what they have to add a Canadian exemption QB?

You want further answer to your question send Ambrosie a letter. This has been beaten to death.

Hopefully I can resist responding further to this issue. It's a dead horse and we've explained why many times by many posters for many seasons.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on January 15, 2020, 05:06:41 PM
We have too many special groups already. Imports, Non-imports, Globals, DI's, QB's and the new I/NI. We don't need an NIQB (Pronounced NI-Cab for Techno) too.

If 2 QB's go down 'in-game' then another player who likely played QB in HS or College goes in for the rest of the game. The 3rd string QB, that most teams will carry, will start the next game. If the top 2 are badly hurt more QB's will be brought in or taken from another teams PR. Based on history, this will happen less than 1% of the time.

Exactly, if both QB's go down in the same game they make do with whoever and possibly lose the game, so what?  Losses happen all the time and there are varied excuses to explain them away, at least this would qualify as a legitimate excuse.  No reason to get worked up about an event that is going to be an extremely rare occurrence, if it does happen.....again, so what?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 15, 2020, 05:25:47 PM
D. Adams has a 100% completion and 254% QB efficiency. He's # 3 and would hand off every play when we switched out receivers for Augustine and Oliveria.

:) :) :)


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 16, 2020, 03:56:42 AM
We have too many special groups already. Imports, Non-imports, Globals, DI's, QB's and the new I/NI. We don't need an NIQB (Pronounced NI-Cab for Techno) too.

If 2 QB's go down 'in-game' then another player who likely played QB in HS or College goes in for the rest of the game. The 3rd string QB, that most teams will carry, will start the next game. If the top 2 are badly hurt more QB's will be brought in or taken from another teams PR. Based on history, this will happen less than 1% of the time.

Thank you TB!!  You're the first one to actually answer the question.  So you guys see a non-QB (D.Adams probably) come in as QB.  What about the helmet problem I outlined before?  Just send him in without communication with the OC booth?

Having a roster with 3 QB's which included that developmental QB was fine until Ambrosie screwed that up. In the past many teams rotated or kept a # 4 QB sitting on the PR and at times on the 1 game IR.

You asked. That's the answer.

Yes, Ambrosie screwed it up.  Nope, you still didn't answer my question...

If both the # 1 and # 2 QB go down the team is going to lose that game. Regardless. If the league has decided to NOT have a 3rd QB on the roster, what logic what they have to add a Canadian exemption QB?

Thank you, you finally answered the question.  Sort of.  I'll assume you agree with TB that we'll just throw a kinda-can-play-qb AR player behind center.  And yes, that means we lose.

However, putting D.Adams behind center causes a player safety issue to D.Adams, the OL and the RB, because no one will have any clue what's going on and DA is going to hang on to the ball too long and D's will be rushing 11 or 12.

Exactly, if both QB's go down in the same game they make do with whoever and possibly lose the game, so what?  Losses happen all the time and there are varied excuses to explain them away, at least this would qualify as a legitimate excuse.  No reason to get worked up about an event that is going to be an extremely rare occurrence, if it does happen.....again, so what?

But teams normally lose after at least trying a full 60 (ok, sometimes 45) minutes.  I guess no one will care if the 2 QBs go down in the 4th Q.  But what if both QBs go down 5 mins into the 1st Q?  I recall that MTL game a few years ago the 2 QBs went down before halftime, I think!

I don't know about you guys, but if I just paid $150 for me and the kid to go to IGF, I don't want to see D.Adams come in as the QB after 5 minutes of game time.  Do we all just go home then?  At least with a (free and no new categories required!) GLOB or (minor re-jigging) NAT QB we can at least watch a "real" QB try to make something happen.

Sure, 1% chance we'll ever see this happen at IGF, but 33% chance we'll see it happen once a year watching a game on TSN.  But just like Murphy's Law dictated every single starting QB got injured in '19 when Ambrosie announced the insanity, I'd actually bet money we'll see one instance of a double QB injury in 2020.  I'm actually rooting for it, because then Ambrosie will be forced to eat crow and go back to 3 AR QBs because the CFL will instantly become a laughing stock.

I hate all the stupid Ambrosie rules and changes as much as everyone, but if we're going to be stuck with it, might as well try to make the best of it!  Grabbing a completely "free" dressed GLOB QB is the way to go KW!!


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 16, 2020, 02:55:44 PM
The designated a 3rd string QB will be taught and will practice a few plays, just like they did in the old days when there were only 2 QB's on the roster.

The helmet issue is easily solved by either preparing 3 helmet's before each game or giving the 3rd string guy the #1 guys helmet and making the needed adjustments. 

Less than 1% is for all games over 40+ years, not just IGF games. There's less than a 1% chance we will see at any time it this year, not a 33% chance. As for 2 QB's going down in the first 5 minutes. I can't remember that ever happening in the 50+ years I've watched football. It's maybe a 10% of the 1% chance of happening. A number so small that it isn't worth worrying about.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 16, 2020, 03:55:46 PM
The designated a 3rd string QB will be taught and will practice a few plays, just like they did in the old days when there were only 2 QB's on the roster.

The helmet issue is easily solved by either preparing 3 helmet's before each game or giving the 3rd string guy the #1 guys helmet and making the needed adjustments. 

Less than 1% is for all games over 40+ years, not just IGF games. There's less than a 1% chance we will see at any time it this year, not a 33% chance. As for 2 QB's going down in the first 5 minutes. I can't remember that ever happening in the 50+ years I've watched football. It's maybe a 10% of the 1% chance of happening. A number so small that it isn't worth worrying about.

Every helmet is custom fitted for each player, you just don't "swap helmets"...  I guess, if you know who you're #3 is going to be, you could have a second helmet fitted for him that contains the headset that he can wear in case of emergency, and hope that that designated backup QB is not injured during the game before he gets called up... maybe you need a 4th QB helmet for the guy behind your designated #3...

Having a player (Nat or Glb) on the AR in the 3rd QB spot as a development player doesn't cost much or hurt anything.  And he is fully trained in running the O, even if it is a very limited set.  Adams, or whomever is #3 or #4 on the DC at QB, won't be.  Player safety issue again, he's gonna get smoked way easier than a guy that takes reps at QB every day. 

If your QB's have got you out to a 32-7 lead, and they go out, are you going to lose?  If you have a guy that can competently come in and hand the ball off 2 times without fumbling and then punt, maybe not.  But if have a non-QB come in...  I think you have a much more likely chance of failure.  And are risking that players health.

Its like the NHL's Emergency goalie each arena has available.  You don't strap goalie pads on one of your skaters, rather you bring in a guy who has no business being on the ice from a talent perspective, but at least he knows the position and won't get smoked because he doesn't know what to do.  He may get beat like a rented mule, but he might just keep you in the game...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 16, 2020, 04:30:19 PM
It will be interesting to see how many teams dress a 3rd QB this year.

One cost is that the 3rd QB will take another player off the AR. If the 3rd QB is designated as a QB which is most likely, then 1 NI backup will lose their spot. If the 3rd QB is designated as an import then 1 DI will lose their spot. Another cost is that 3rd string QB's are paid more than the minimum salary.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 17, 2020, 06:52:39 AM
Less than 1% is for all games over 40+ years, not just IGF games. There's less than a 1% chance we will see at any time it this year, not a 33% chance. As for 2 QB's going down in the first 5 minutes. I can't remember that ever happening in the 50+ years I've watched football. It's maybe a 10% of the 1% chance of happening. A number so small that it isn't worth worrying about.

I guess you missed StatsJunkie's stats earlier in the thread... in the last 20 years there have been 7 instances of both QBs going down.  The 20 years before that looked much the same.  So history hints it's roughly a 33% chance any given year will see a single game where both #1 & #2 QBs go down.

Not 1%...  33%!  Yes, it's 1/9*33% = roughly 3.5% chance your team will see this happen in a given year.  But league-wide it's not as rare as you would think.

As for when they get hurt, the June 25 2015 Als game had both Crompton and LeFevour go down before midway through the 3rd Q.  So it was almost an entire half played that day where, if it happened this year with no 3rd QB, it would be a bush league clown show with some WR as QB.  Or, worse, they rush the injured Crompton back in who then aggravates his injury further.

As an aside, that was B.Bridge's first game reps, and it gave a 3rd stringer a chance to show his stuff.  In this case, he wasn't stellar, but it did give him a job for 3-4 more years in the CFL by seeing he could actually play.  No more game reps for possibly-legit 3rd stringers any more (NAT/GLOB or otherwise)!

It will be interesting to see how many teams dress a 3rd QB this year.

No team will dress a 3rd IMP QB at the cost of a DI.  None.  No one.  The only way they might is if they know their #1 is iffy with an minor injury to begin with.  Even then, unless it's a playoff, just sit the #1 and dress your PR #3.

It will be interesting to see whoever has a NAT QB whether they dress them over a STer NAT.  I could see that possibly occurring.  What I really want to see is a team hire a GLOB QB and dress them over the #2 never-see-the-field STer GLOB.

Another cost is that 3rd string QB's are paid more than the minimum salary.

Not if they're a GLOB!!  Mandated ELC.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 17, 2020, 02:08:42 PM
I guess you missed StatsJunkie's stats earlier in the thread... in the last 20 years there have been 7 instances of both QBs going down.  The 20 years before that looked much the same.  So history hints it's roughly a 33% chance any given year will see a single game where both #1 & #2 QBs go down.

Not 1%...  33%!  Yes, it's 1/9*33% = roughly 3.5% chance your team will see this happen in a given year.  But league-wide it's not as rare as you would think.

As for when they get hurt, the June 25 2015 Als game had both Crompton and LeFevour go down before midway through the 3rd Q.  So it was almost an entire half played that day where, if it happened this year with no 3rd QB, it would be a bush league clown show with some WR as QB.  Or, worse, they rush the injured Crompton back in who then aggravates his injury further.

As an aside, that was B.Bridge's first game reps, and it gave a 3rd stringer a chance to show his stuff.  In this case, he wasn't stellar, but it did give him a job for 3-4 more years in the CFL by seeing he could actually play.  No more game reps for possibly-legit 3rd stringers any more (NAT/GLOB or otherwise)!

No team will dress a 3rd IMP QB at the cost of a DI.  None.  No one.  The only way they might is if they know their #1 is iffy with an minor injury to begin with.  Even then, unless it's a playoff, just sit the #1 and dress your PR #3.

It will be interesting to see whoever has a NAT QB whether they dress them over a STer NAT.  I could see that possibly occurring.  What I really want to see is a team hire a GLOB QB and dress them over the #2 never-see-the-field STer GLOB.

Not if they're a GLOB!!  Mandated ELC.

There are 95 games in a CFL season (81 regular plus playoffs) not 9. According to StatsJunkie the 3rd string QB was been needed 7 times in 41 years (His oldest example was 1978). It's a league wide stat, not single team stat. 95* 41 = 3850 games. 7/3895 = .00179 which is .179%, not 33%.

About 5 years ago a game had 2 QB's go down before the end of the 3rd Quarter. You're using that game as an example of 2 QB's going down in the 1st quarter. It's not.

The rule is a minimum of 2 QB's, not a maximum. If a team has a wonky starting QB, they can dress a 3rd QB. I think we'll see that happen more than once this year by some team.

You're assuming it will be at the cost of a DI. I'm assuming that the 3rd QB is designated as a QB so it would be at the cost of a NI. (Hint: Number of NI's is a calculated number, not a hard number)

I didn't include a Global QB because it's such a dumb idea that it doesn't merit discussion.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: booch on January 17, 2020, 02:45:19 PM
people are playing too much into this.....and like stated a 3rd string is rarely needed...and many times a team even last yr only dressed 2.....the thought is that teams will only have 2 viable QB's on roster which won't be the case...If we were back to status quo like last year we would have Nichols and Strev on game day, and Mcguire being the one scratch, 1 gamed...or on the PR but being paid his salary he signed for, not a practice roster reduced amount....people need to chill


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: the paw on January 17, 2020, 03:22:40 PM
I just want to say that this forum is enriched by over-enthusiastic posters who tirelessly (and repeatedly) advocate for  cumbersome and complex solutions to problems that don't really exist.

#donquixote


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Blue In BC on January 17, 2020, 04:12:23 PM
Over enthusiastic posters is a polite way of putting it. :)


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on January 17, 2020, 04:21:55 PM
I just want to say that this forum is enriched by over-enthusiastic posters who tirelessly (and repeatedly) advocate for  cumbersome and complex solutions to problems that don't really exist.

#donquixote


LOL so true!


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Jesse on January 17, 2020, 05:16:42 PM
I just want to say that this forum is enriched by over-enthusiastic posters who tirelessly (and repeatedly) advocate for  cumbersome and complex solutions to problems that don't really exist.

#donquixote


....yup.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on January 17, 2020, 06:00:46 PM
IIRC, teams that dressed 2 QB's were ones in SMS trouble... having QB's on 1 game IR's and having to pay "play bonuses" to backups as well...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 19, 2020, 08:00:56 AM
There are 95 games in a CFL season (81 regular plus playoffs) not 9. According to StatsJunkie the 3rd string QB was been needed 7 times in 41 years (His oldest example was 1978). It's a league wide stat, not single team stat. 95* 41 = 3850 games. 7/3895 = .00179 which is .179%, not 33%.

I looked back at Junkie's post and I was reading it slightly incorrectly: I was just counting the number of lines and not reading all the details.  Yes, a few of them have one of the injured QBs returning before the #3 can hit the field.  Ok, so we'll exclude those.

To keep things simple I was just counting the last 20 years (1999-2019) because I'm lazy, and because it is more representative of "modern" football anyhow, compared to the 70's... the pads & helmet tech has changed, etc.

So, going by that, here are the games that definitely had the #3 hit the field:
Ssk - Jun 13, 2019 - Zach Collaros & Cody Fajardo injured - Isaac Harker finished the game
Mtl - Jun 25, 2015 - Jonathan Crompton & Dan Lefevour injured - Brandon Bridge played
Wpg - Oct 27, 2012 - Buck Pierce & joey Elliott injured - Alex Brink played
Wpg - Sep 24, 2011 - Buck Pierce & Alex Brink injured - Justin Goltz played
Wpg - Oct 23, 2010 - Steven Jyles & Alex Brink injured - Joey Elliott played
Cgy - Sep 1, 2008 - Henry Burris & Dave Dickenson injured - Barrick Nealy played

Doesn't count as I initially thought because #1 came back in:
Ssk - Jul 28, 2000 - Henry Burris & Jim Ballard injured - Burris finished the game

So it's not 7 in 20 years as I reported: it's 6 in 20 years.  6/20 is 30%, which is almost what I was saying (33%).

To be explicit, the stat above definitely shows/proves that based on 20 years of history, there was at least one game a season where a #3 plays due to injury to #1/#2 30% of the time.  That is mathematically true.  This cannot be disputed by anyone who understands probability.

If we apply that probability going forward, which we might reasonably be able to do, but obviously it can't be proven until we see the future, there is a 30% probability in 2020 that at least 1 game will have both #1 and #2 go down.  Not 1%.  30%!

Your math is wrong because you are answering the wrong question.  I am not talking games.  I am talking seasons.  You are answering the question: "what are the odds that this one game here is going to have both QBs hurt".  Yes, that number is very small.  I'm more interested in the question: "will Ambrosie have egg on his face in 2020?" -- and that question is not game-specific.  All it takes is 1 of the 81 season games to have this happen for egg to occur.

About 5 years ago a game had 2 QB's go down before the end of the 3rd Quarter. You're using that game as an example of 2 QB's going down in the 1st quarter. It's not.

Because I'm too lazy to look up press clippings for (pre-gametracker) games for all 7 games, and Junkie didn't provide the details of what quarter they went down in.  Yes, probably most games had #2 go down in the 2nd half, as it stands to reason.  However, I would bet money that at least 1 game saw both QBs go down in the 1st half.  There's an outside shot both go down in the 1Q, though it would be terribly unlucky.

But my whole point is about fan feelings, and is a fan any less miffed if there's no QB on the field starting in 3Q vs 2Q?  Sure, if it's the end of the 4Q, most fans will say "meh".  But if nearly an entire half is played with no QB, I think fans will start vocalisng their displeasure.

You're assuming it will be at the cost of a DI. I'm assuming that the 3rd QB is designated as a QB so it would be at the cost of a NI. (Hint: Number of NI's is a calculated number, not a hard number)

I don't see how you possibly think you get another American QB on the field without using up a DI under the new rules!?!  Calculated or not, I really think you're misreading the rule then.  I don't think anyone has suggested you can dress a #3 QB who is an IMP without losing a DI!  NAT or GLOB QB, sure.  IMP?  Never.  Please explain this magic math that allows it?

I didn't include a Global QB because it's such a dumb idea that it doesn't merit discussion.

When a team this year (hopefully WPG!) dresses a GLOB QB because they realize there is no downside whatsoever, I want you to buy me a beer!  Well, a Dr.Pepper because I don't drink.  And eat some crow!  You all laughed at my Kongbo/Fatboi ratio "cheat" too, when I suggested it 2 months before that's how MOS rostered it!  That cheat arguably greatly helped us to win the entire post-season (allowed Alexander instead of Hecht at FS).


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on January 19, 2020, 08:08:06 AM
I just want to say that this forum is enriched by over-enthusiastic posters who tirelessly (and repeatedly) advocate for  cumbersome and complex solutions to problems that don't really exist.

#donquixote


Yes, you are 100% right: complex, yes (Ambrosie's fault).  Non-problems: well 99% of the time, yes.  It's that super-rare "black swan" Murphy's Law game that sneaks in to bite the unprepared that's the issue.  Yes, we'll probably not see such a thing in 2020.  Maybe not 2021 either.

I'll stop rehashing my point as I've stated it enough: I'm content to sit and wait to see if any GM takes heed (new interest in NAT QBs or a new GLOB QB).  However, I will defend my math, and/or discuss any new info/questions!

#donquixote  :D


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on January 19, 2020, 03:48:51 PM
Tecno...

Based on your numbers (You should actually go back to 1990 because that's when the CFL rules changed from 2 to 3 QB's) there is a 30% chance that one of the 95 games this season will have a 3rd string QB for part of a game or about 1% of the games. Put another way, once every 3+ years, there's a game that needs a 3rd string QB.

QB's are a separate category with no Non-Import, American or Global designation.

Nationals = Total Players (46) - QB's (2 or 3) - Americans including DI's (20) - Globals (2) - Reserve (1)

If QB = 2 then Nationals = 21
If QB = 3 then Nationals = 20

Edit: I went back and took a look at the last 30 years which covers the 3 QB rule. Using StatsJunkie's post I found that distribution of 3 QB years isn't anywhere near equal. In the last 10 years, their were 5 occurrences. One occurrence in years 10-20 and 2 occurrences in years 21-30.  If you use 10 years of data, you get 50% of the years. 20 years of data = 30%. If you use the full data set of 30 years you get 26%. IIRC you need equal distribution to be able to use the % on any specific year in the set. 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: ichabod_crane on February 06, 2020, 09:58:25 PM
Interesting quote I just saw: "Ambrose has stated - ?Nobody is prevented from having a third quarterback on their roster. It just eliminated that third quarterback rule. So nobody should be concerned that we won?t see teams carrying three quarterbacks ? that?s a decision the teams will make.?The new rule specifies a requirement of two quarterbacks, not a limit of two quarterbacks."


So you CAN apparently have a 3rd QB on the active roster. He is just not designated as one of the two QB spots, but takes another general roster spot.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on February 07, 2020, 06:59:56 AM
So you CAN apparently have a 3rd QB on the active roster. He is just not designated as one of the two QB spots, but takes another general roster spot.

That's my take too.  If you carry a 3rd, he is not on any "QB roster", if he's dressed he's on the general roster and he can be either an IMP and use up one of your IMPs, or a NAT and use up one of your NATs, or a GLOB and use up one of your (near useless) GLOBs.

QB's are a separate category with no Non-Import, American or Global designation.

Nationals = Total Players (46) - QB's (2 or 3) - Americans including DI's (20) - Globals (2) - Reserve (1)

If QB = 2 then Nationals = 21
If QB = 3 then Nationals = 20


If you use the full data set of 30 years you get 26%. IIRC you need equal distribution to be able to use the % on any specific year in the set.

The QB=3 = 20NATs is your take on it.  You might be correct.  However, I agree with ichabod's take as it fits closer to what I've read.  What I take as the mistake in your layout is the "QB's (2 or 3)" part of the equation.  I think it is now fixed at "QBs (2)".  The problem is all the new rules are laid out by the CFL about as clear as mud.

Yes, you are correct that including the 80's skews the 30% down to 26%.  So 1 in 3 years vs 1 in 4 years.  I guess it's moot until we see it happen in 2020 :D ... like I said, Murphy's Law.  I bet it happens in week 1! ;D ;D


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 07, 2020, 01:48:03 PM
Wow... epiphany.  The 2 QB roster *IS* a way to get a Nat QB on the roster... 2 INT QBs are rostered as QBs, the third can be a NAT QB rostered as a position player, sure, but a QB none the less, and you don't lose a DI to do it...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Sir Blue and Gold on February 07, 2020, 02:01:43 PM
Wow... epiphany.  The 2 QB roster *IS* a way to get a Nat QB on the roster... 2 INT QBs are rostered as QBs, the third can be a NAT QB rostered as a position player, sure, but a QB none the less, and you don't lose a DI to do it...

Hallelujah, we are saved.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 07, 2020, 02:04:06 PM
A NAT QB3 can be your holder... we have a NAT LS, why not extend the specials to be all NAT...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: kkc60 on February 07, 2020, 02:12:43 PM
A NAT QB3 can be your holder... we have a NAT LS, why not extend the specials to be all NAT...
Medlock isn't a Nat


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on February 07, 2020, 02:19:03 PM
A NAT QB3 can be your holder... we have a NAT LS, why not extend the specials to be all NAT...
Holder's don't have to be QB's, so that's a moot point.

Can anyone point to where they read that a 3rd QB wouldn't be designated as a QB and takes another general roster spot?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 07, 2020, 03:19:34 PM
Holder's don't have to be QB's, so that's a moot point.

Can anyone point to where they read that a 3rd QB wouldn't be designated as a QB and takes another general roster spot?

What advantage is there to designating him as a QB?  You would be foolish to.  All QB designation does is limit the player's participation.  Previously, when there was a free spot on the DC for an Int player designated as QB, it made sense to list him as such.  Now, no such free spot.  If you have a 3rd QB designated as a QB, you lose a DI.  Becasue there isn't even a provision for QB2 or QB3 being in the ratio.  QB1 NAT starting covers a NAT starting spot, but otherwise, a QB is not part of the ratio if designated as a QB.

So, roster a NAT QB as a FB, and he has full ability to play any snap, including when QB1 or QB2 is on the field.

Or if QB3 is an INT, then roster him as a QB if you like, although that still prevents him from being on teh field if QB1 or QB2 is on the field....  so why would you limit his play?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on February 07, 2020, 03:34:28 PM
What advantage is there to designating him as a QB?  You would be foolish to.  All QB designation does is limit the player's participation.  Previously, when there was a free spot on the DC for an Int player designated as QB, it made sense to list him as such.  Now, no such free spot.  If you have a 3rd QB designated as a QB, you lose a DI.  Becasue there isn't even a provision for QB2 or QB3 being in the ratio.  QB1 NAT starting covers a NAT starting spot, but otherwise, a QB is not part of the ratio if designated as a QB.

So, roster a NAT QB as a FB, and he has full ability to play any snap, including when QB1 or QB2 is on the field.

Or if QB3 is an INT, then roster him as a QB if you like, although that still prevents him from being on teh field if QB1 or QB2 is on the field....  so why would you limit his play?
Because QB's aren't included in the NAT/IMP rules. QB3 as a QB = additional IMP.

QB3 as any other spot = taking another import off the roster.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 07, 2020, 03:38:13 PM
Because QB's aren't included in the NAT/IMP rules. QB3 as a QB = additional IMP.

QB3 as any other spot = taking another import off the roster.

If QB3 is a NAT and designated as a FB, no loss of INT, but there is a loss of a NAT...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on February 07, 2020, 03:44:03 PM
If QB3 is a NAT and designated as a FB, no loss of INT, but there is a loss of a NAT...
We don't have a NAT QB. If we want a NAT FB, then we hire one. There is no advantage to pretending that a QB is a FB. If we want someone else to throw the ball, Darvin Adams comes to mind.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 07, 2020, 07:24:18 PM
We don't have a NAT QB. If we want a NAT FB, then we hire one. There is no advantage to pretending that a QB is a FB. If we want someone else to throw the ball, Darvin Adams comes to mind.

The upside of having a NAT QB dressed as a "FB" is he can be on the field on any play... no downside.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on February 07, 2020, 09:44:12 PM
The upside of having a NAT QB dressed as a "FB" is he can be on the field on any play... no downside.
No downside? How 'bout he isn't a FB?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: Sir Blue and Gold on February 08, 2020, 01:33:24 AM
No downside? How 'bout he isn't a FB?

Haha


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 08, 2020, 03:33:19 AM
No downside? How 'bout he isn't a FB?

I don't get it...  neither is John Rush... what's your point?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on February 08, 2020, 06:52:41 AM
Holder's don't have to be QB's, so that's a moot point.

Can anyone point to where they read that a 3rd QB wouldn't be designated as a QB and takes another general roster spot?

Well, the fact that the number of "designated QBs" in terms of a separate roster spot is now fixed at 2.  Everything I've read and heard Ambrosie say hints that if you want a #3 IMP QB, he's coming out of your general IMP roster, thus almost certainly a DI.

Hence your yen for a NAT QB and my yen for a GLOB QB... because in both cases you should be allowed to keep your 4 DIs.

In other words, I think QBs will still be "designated" in terms of one, only one, and always one on field for each O snap.  But I think any 3rd QB will not be part of the "separate designated roster area" in terms of how they appear on the roster.  I could be wrong.

So, roster a NAT QB as a FB, and he has full ability to play any snap, including when QB1 or QB2 is on the field.

I would assume that even though your #3 QB is not in the "2-man designated QB" roster, the rules about always just 1 QB on the field at a time (never 2 and never 0) would still apply to that 3rd QB.  It would be chaos and trickery galore if under the new rules a #3 QB could be on the field as a FB sometimes (with a DQB taking the snap) and sometimes the only QB on the field behind center.

In fact, I want to see the official wording because it's all so murky right now as to how a dressed #3 QB would fit in.  At least we know for sure there can be a dressed #3 QB because Ambrosie said so in black & white terms.  He just didn't say how that #3 is designated.

Because QB's aren't included in the NAT/IMP rules. QB3 as a QB = additional IMP.

QB3 as any other spot = taking another import off the roster.

What part of the roster?  One of the starting IMP guys?  One of the DIs?  Surely it can't be one of your normal starting IMP guys because then you'd have to start an additional NAT in a normal IMP spot just to get that 3rd QB who likely won't see a rep!  So it must be a DI.  And no one is going to do that either.  A valuable rotation DI vs a 3rd QB?  Pffft.

No, the only way you'll see a 3rd QB rostered is if he's a NAT/GLOB and comes from that part of the AR where you already have "extra" guys who don't see many reps (think Exume, or 95% of GLOBs in the league).


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on February 08, 2020, 03:48:26 PM
Not wanting to guess any more, I went to the CBA:

Quote
For the 2020 and 2021 seasons, there shall not be more than twenty (20)
American Players, which shall include four (4) designated American Players and which shall
exclude quarterbacks on the Active Roster of each Member Club for regular season, playoff and
Grey Cup games.

- 20 Imps including 4 DI's, excluding QB's

Quote
For the 2020 and 2021 seasons, each Member Club must dress two (2)
quarterbacks for each regular season, playoff and Grey Cup games.

- Must dress 2 QB's, not fixed at 2 QB's

Quote
For the 2020 and 2021 seasons, the Commissioner shall maintain in the League
office a registry of Players under contract with each Member Club. Prior to the
commencement of the regular season schedule each Member Club shall, in
accordance with a timetable prescribed by the Management Council, establish its
active Roster at:
(a)
a maximum of 45 Players, including 2 Players who shall be identified as
quarterbacks and 43 other Players, of whom not more than 20 may be
Americans
- All the way down on page 72... I think I found it.
  2 designated QB's on the active roster. A 3rd QB would therefore not be a QB and would be included in the regular player ratio.

Looks like 'someone' should have done this 9 pages ago.  ;) You're right Tec. 3rd QB's count in the ratio.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: GOLDMEMBER on February 08, 2020, 04:01:34 PM
Not wanting to guess any more, I went to the CBA:

- 20 Imps including 4 DI's, excluding QB's

- Must dress 2 QB's, not fixed at 2 QB's
- All the way down on page 72... I think I found it.
  2 designated QB's on the active roster. A 3rd QB would therefore not be a QB and would be included in the regular player ratio.

Looks like 'someone' should have done this 9 pages ago.  ;) You're right Tec. 3rd QB's count in the ratio.

Wow thanks Burgy!


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 09, 2020, 04:18:54 PM
So, a NAT 3QB does not cost a DI (but costs a NAT backup), an INT 3QB costs a DI, and either can play on any down...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on February 09, 2020, 05:46:01 PM
So, a NAT 3QB does not cost a DI (but costs a NAT backup), an INT 3QB costs a DI, and either can play on any down...
Funny thing is that a NAT QB is a Nat if he's 3rd string, not a NAT if he's 2nd string, and becomes a NAT again if he's the starter.

To roster a 3rd string NAT QB you need to find one who is willing to get paid entry level Canuck money and is better than the NAT he replaces on the roster.

IIRC Bridge is in BC and I can't think of any other NAT QB's who would be available. I guess you could just bring in the best Usports QB, but I'd guess he'd be worse than an import QB.

Is a 3rd string NAT QB is worth a roster spot over a 2nd string NAT backup? Not likely IMO.

Would a 3rd string NAT QB would sign for the same amount of money as a 2nd string NAT backup? I don't see QB's only getting the league minimum.



Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on February 10, 2020, 06:50:56 AM
Not wanting to guess any more, I went to the CBA:

Looks like 'someone' should have done this 9 pages ago.  ;) You're right Tec. 3rd QB's count in the ratio.

Thanks so much TB!  Wow, to finally get that question off our shoulders and be sure of it now... Can you post the link here you found that at?  Good for everyone to reference.

So, a NAT 3QB does not cost a DI (but costs a NAT backup), an INT 3QB costs a DI, and either can play on any down...

I'm still not convinced of the "any down" aspect, Aards.  I assume the player will be listed as QB depth in the GDDC.  I think the main rule book words the QB limitations (just/must one on every O down, etc.) just as "quarterback", not as "one of the 2 designated quarterbacks".

If teams read the new rules as the way you think and we see that on the field, I can see Ambrosie clarifying the rules real darn fast!!

If I'm not wrong, what you say would allow:
Collaros+McGuire both in pistol, say spaced a bit apart, with AH behind them both, C can snap to either QB.  C could try to read the blitz direction and snap to the opposite QB and the idle QB could block the blitz side with AH!

That's pure insanity.  No football league can allow that.  I'm sure the wording must disallow this under current rules, or Ambrosie will update them pronto.

I'm also pretty sure my interpretation means Bennett still can't play ST in 2020, even if he's a dressed #3.  Basically everywhere in the rulebook it says qb it will mean all qbs, the 2 and any 3rd qb you choose to dress.

Funny thing is that a NAT QB is a Nat if he's 3rd string, not a NAT if he's 2nd string, and becomes a NAT again if he's the starter.

Why?  Are you referring to the weird never-used useless roster change Ambrosie made as a stop-gap in 2019?  I vaguely remember that.  Otherwise please explain the last bit as I don't get it.

To roster a 3rd string NAT QB you need to find one who is willing to get paid entry level Canuck money and is better than the NAT he replaces on the roster.

Why does he have to be ELC NAT money?  Pay him whatever, right?  Or are you saying no one will be able to afford to pay a 3rd QB, especially a NAT of limited ability, more than ELC?  Certainly teams who haven't blown the QB $ wad could pay an IMP #3 the same as they always have their development QB?  (Keeping in mind IMP #3s will almost never be GD dressed.)

Is a 3rd string NAT QB is worth a roster spot over a 2nd string NAT backup? Not likely IMO.

Would a 3rd string NAT QB would sign for the same amount of money as a 2nd string NAT backup? I don't see QB's only getting the league minimum.

.... but a GLOB would be!  1. Guaranteed ELC by league rule; 2. Why wouldn't a gung-ho GLOB QB want to come try it out vs not playing football at all?; 3. 2nd (and usually 1st) GLOB is otherwise useless no-rep waste of space... why not waste that space with a "free" GLOB that can back up your 1 & 2?  I'm telling you guys!!  Only #2 is the iffy part... do these guys have a market for their talents in Europe that pays more than CFL ELC?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 10, 2020, 01:31:40 PM
The reason to list a player as QB3 last year was it was an open spot on the roster, dressing a QB3 did not affect your DI's or NAT backups. 

This year, there are no advantages like that for listing a player as QB3.  No smart GM would list a player as QB3.  All it does is limit the team and player's participation.  Especially if yopur 3rd QB is a Bennett / Lynch type player.

You want 3 QBs on your roster this year, it would be silly to actually call QB3 a QB.  Unless you have zero intent to use him as anything but the only guy behind centre on O plays.   

There is no downside to listing them as a FB.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on February 10, 2020, 02:40:59 PM
Link: https://media.cfldb.ca/documents/cfl-cflpa-collective-agreement-2019.pdf

As a 3rd QB wouldn't be designated as a QB, they aren't a QB according to the rules, so why would they have to follow any of the QB rules?

The NFL allows more than 1 QB on the field. Next year the CFL will too as long as 1 of them is a 3rd string QB, who isn't designated as a QB.

1st string NI QB's are NI's according to the CBA and 2nd string don't count in the ratio either way. 3rd string QB's do. Hence the NI, not NI, NI again.

You want to pay your starters the most you can so you pay your backups as close to the minimum as possible. You don't want to pay a 3rd string guy more than the 2nd string guys. Paying a 3rd QB salary reduces the amount of money available for the rest of the team.

Do the rules allow a global at #3? Sure. Would a Global QB want to play? Sure. Would they be ready and able to play? Not likely. We can't even find viable NI QB's let along Global ones.

If teams carry a 3rd QB, he'll be an import and he won't be on the game day roster unless the #1 guy has serious injury issues that make it unlikely he'll last a whole game.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on February 11, 2020, 01:04:33 AM
You want 3 QBs on your roster this year, it would be silly to actually call QB3 a QB.  Unless you have zero intent to use him as anything but the only guy behind centre on O plays.   

There is no downside to listing them as a FB.

Still not convinced Aards.  So you're saying if you call McGuire a FB you could have that scenario I outlined?  If anything like that ever happens Ambrosie will shut it down real fast.

But I guess you couldn't have McGuire as your "FB" and have just him on the field with Collaros.  You still need to satisfy the "one and only one QB must be on the field for all O snaps" rule.  Wait a sec... if you guys say #3 could be designated a FB, then that means you must have another 2-QB-roster QB on the field for all snaps!  That would mean having a #3 "FB/QB" doesn't buy you anything if your #1 and #2 get injured.

No, I'm pretty sure the idea is you have a #3, call him a QB on the GDDC, and he can be the only QB on the field for an O snap.

Argh, I'm getting confused again...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on February 11, 2020, 01:05:55 AM
Link: https://media.cfldb.ca/documents/cfl-cflpa-collective-agreement-2019.pdf

Thanks!  That's dated May 2019... is that because they had it all done they just had to take a year to finally get it ratified?  Or is there a newer CBA out there?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 11, 2020, 04:48:46 AM
Still not convinced Aards.  So you're saying if you call McGuire a FB you could have that scenario I outlined?  If anything like that ever happens Ambrosie will shut it down real fast.

But I guess you couldn't have McGuire as your "FB" and have just him on the field with Collaros.  You still need to satisfy the "one and only one QB must be on the field for all O snaps" rule.  Wait a sec... if you guys say #3 could be designated a FB, then that means you must have another 2-QB-roster QB on the field for all snaps!  That would mean having a #3 "FB/QB" doesn't buy you anything if your #1 and #2 get injured.

No, I'm pretty sure the idea is you have a #3, call him a QB on the GDDC, and he can be the only QB on the field for an O snap.

Argh, I'm getting confused again...


If McGuire is your #3 and you have a QB2, you have to lose a DI.  If you call him QB3, he is limited to what a QB can do...   but if you call him a FB, he has no limitations.  Either way he takes a DI spot, so why call him a QB?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on February 11, 2020, 06:27:46 AM
If McGuire is your #3 and you have a QB2, you have to lose a DI.  If you call him QB3, he is limited to what a QB can do...   but if you call him a FB, he has no limitations.  Either way he takes a DI spot, so why call him a QB?

Yes, I meant McGuire as #3.  (Assume some other legit #1b as our #2.)

Well, if you don't call him a QB, and you call him a FB, then there must be a "real" QB on the field for all O snaps with that "FB", right?  Or are you saying they'd allow a team to have an O snap with just a FB behind center and no QB in sight?

If that's what you're saying, it doesn't gain you anything when your #1 and #2 get injured, no?  Isn't that the whole point of this exercise?

If that's the case, the only reason you'd want your QB as a FB is for trick plays.

I'm not sure we're even having the same conversation anymore?  My whole thing is to find a way to still dress a #3 QB who can sub in when #1 and #2 are injured.  We used to be discussing that with your NAT idea and my GLOB idea under the newly minted roster rules.  I'm not sure what the "FB" idea buys you at all now that it didn't buy you before.  Couldn't you have put in a QB-cum-FB back in 2018 without a problem?  So what is it exactly that you see has changed under the new rules that makes this more attractive?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on February 11, 2020, 02:02:06 PM
Thanks!  That's dated May 2019... is that because they had it all done they just had to take a year to finally get it ratified?  Or is there a newer CBA out there?

Quote
The current Collective Bargaining Agreement between the CFL and CFLPA was ratified May 22, 2019. Initial media reports listed highlights of the deal from undisclosed sources, but the full text of the agreement was released in January 2020. The agreement lasts three years through the 2021 season, expiring the day before the 2022 training camp starts.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 11, 2020, 02:09:56 PM
Yes, I meant McGuire as #3.  (Assume some other legit #1b as our #2.)

Well, if you don't call him a QB, and you call him a FB, then there must be a "real" QB on the field for all O snaps with that "FB", right?  Or are you saying they'd allow a team to have an O snap with just a FB behind center and no QB in sight?

If that's what you're saying, it doesn't gain you anything when your #1 and #2 get injured, no?  Isn't that the whole point of this exercise?

If that's the case, the only reason you'd want your QB as a FB is for trick plays.

I'm not sure we're even having the same conversation anymore?  My whole thing is to find a way to still dress a #3 QB who can sub in when #1 and #2 are injured.  We used to be discussing that with your NAT idea and my GLOB idea under the newly minted roster rules.  I'm not sure what the "FB" idea buys you at all now that it didn't buy you before.  Couldn't you have put in a QB-cum-FB back in 2018 without a problem?  So what is it exactly that you see has changed under the new rules that makes this more attractive?


If QB1 and QB2 are injured and there is no QB3 on the roster, you sub in a position player, regardless.  If he happens to be an actual QB that you are calling a FB, so be it.

On the other hand, if you want 2 QBs in the backfield for any reason, you can put QB3 that is called FB in the game with QB1 or QB2... you can't if you actually designate him as QB3...

The difference is, before there was a roster spot at QB3 that you could dress or not dress, and it wouldn't cost you either a DI or NAT backup spot if you dressed one.  Now, if you want to dress a designated QB3 (allowed), you have to give up dressing a DI / Nat backup player.  So, before, you gained a player on the sidelines by dressing 3 QB's, but accepted that third QB would have limitations.  Now, you don't gain anything by designating him as a QB3, and he had limitations.  See the difference?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on February 12, 2020, 06:29:19 AM
If QB1 and QB2 are injured and there is no QB3 on the roster, you sub in a position player, regardless.  If he happens to be an actual QB that you are calling a FB, so be it.

Ok, I'm starting to get your point.  However, by the rulebook (forget the CBA), you have to have 1 and only 1 QB on the O field at all times.  So if you designate your #3 as FB, how are you satisfying this rule?  Does the rule suddenly disappear just because your #1 and #2 were injured and you didn't roster a #3?  And we all know this rule is a real thing because every single trick play where a non-QB lines up in the shotgun or whatever, they have the real QB lined up as WR or something (as opposed to being off the field completely and replaced with a real, useful, WR.)

I think that aspect has not been explored because I can't recall in the CFL a game where all QBs went down and some non-QB came in under C.

Are you absolutely positive if you exhaust your QB pool that you'd be allowed to put someone not listed under the QB position of the GDDC in at QB?  Common sense would say it needs to be allowed (or what, does the game stop?), but by the letter of the rulebook, it might be forbidden.  I'll have to go check the book again...

That would be so funny if my "worst case" scenario where a team's #1 and #2 go down and there's no #3 that they bring in a WR to be QB is actually not what will happen: the hilarity will be if no player can, by rule, be the new QB and the game has to stop!


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 12, 2020, 12:11:08 PM
The number of QB's on the field is a maximum, not a minimum.  SSK would bring in Marshall at QB, and he wasn't rostered as a QB... 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on February 13, 2020, 11:18:35 PM
The number of QB's on the field is a maximum, not a minimum.  SSK would bring in Marshall at QB, and he wasn't rostered as a QB... 

I'm nearly positive it's both!  If there was no minimum, then how come teams always leave the QB in at WR or TE or wherever when they do the trick direct-snap plays?  If it was me, if you knew 100% for sure you'd never throw to your QB on that play, and there was no minimum, I'd put in another real (NAT) WR or TE.  But without exception I've never seen those plays take the real QB off the field.

Ah... rulebook time...


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on February 14, 2020, 02:32:57 PM
There are 2 designated QB's on the roster. Any 3rd QB wouldn't be designated as a QB. That doesn't mean they can't line up as a QB or that they can't throw the ball. If there's no 3rd QB on the roster, teams will teach another player some plays at QB and use them in case of disaster.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 14, 2020, 02:48:09 PM
I'm nearly positive it's both!  If there was no minimum, then how come teams always leave the QB in at WR or TE or wherever when they do the trick direct-snap plays?  If it was me, if you knew 100% for sure you'd never throw to your QB on that play, and there was no minimum, I'd put in another real (NAT) WR or TE.  But without exception I've never seen those plays take the real QB off the field.

Ah... rulebook time...

If all your QBs get injured, what happens?  You forfeit for not having a designated QB on the field?  The designation is a roster thing, there are "free" spots for QB's on the roster outside the position players / backups.  Teams that dressed 2 QB's last year did not get an extra DI, or even an extra NAT.  They played one body short. 

But that "free" roster spot came with provision that that "free" player couldn't play on the same play with another designated QB.  So, only 1 of the three QB "free spots" could play at a time.   Otherwise, you could have rostered an extra Int WR or RB or OT as a "QB" and played them anytime you wanted. 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: the paw on February 14, 2020, 02:57:41 PM
I'm nearly positive it's both!  If there was no minimum, then how come teams always leave the QB in at WR or TE or wherever when they do the trick direct-snap plays?  If it was me, if you knew 100% for sure you'd never throw to your QB on that play, and there was no minimum, I'd put in another real (NAT) WR or TE.  But without exception I've never seen those plays take the real QB off the field.

Ah... rulebook time...

from the 2019 rule book:

Quote
Article 4 ? Designated Quarterback
Prior to the game, a team is required to designate three players who shall be permitted to alternate for each other during the game at the Quarterback position exclusively. Not more than one such player may be in the game at any time and none of the three can enter the game as a member of Team B.

PENALTY: L25 PLS DR or L25 PBD or option.

NOTE: For the purposes of this Article 4, the duties of the Quarterback position may include punting, place kicking and kicking off. If a team designates three Quarterbacks for a game, the player designated as the third Quarterback shall not be eligible for kicking duties.

NOTE: A team is required to have one designated quarterback or kicker on the field for each of its offensive plays.

For 2020, they are likely to simply amend this by changing it to read two instead of 3.  This means that you still have to have a designated QB or kicker on the field for each offensive play.   If you have a player like Bennett dressed as a DI, he could come on and take a direct snap so long as either one of the other 2 QBs is on the field, or Medlock is out there as part of a fake field goal or punt. 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on February 14, 2020, 07:39:01 PM
from the 2019 rule book:

For 2020, they are likely to simply amend this by changing it to read two instead of 3.  This means that you still have to have a designated QB or kicker on the field for each offensive play.   If you have a player like Bennett dressed as a DI, he could come on and take a direct snap so long as either one of the other 2 QBs is on the field, or Medlock is out there as part of a fake field goal or punt. 
I can't image that they will just change the 3 to a 2. What would they do if QB1 & QB2 get hurt in the same game and the team isn't carrying a QB3?


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: the paw on February 14, 2020, 08:11:51 PM
I can't image that they will just change the 3 to a 2. What would they do if QB1 & QB2 get hurt in the same game and the team isn't carrying a QB3?

Is this a serious question?  They would do the same thing as they would have if three qb's got hurt in 2019... You send in Darvin Adams.

Occam's Razor man....


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: theaardvark on February 14, 2020, 08:16:06 PM
Is this a serious question?  They would do the same thing as they would have if three qb's got hurt in 2019... You send in Darvin Adams.

Occam's Razor man....

He's saying that if the rule says you have to have a designated QB or kicker on the field every offensie down.. or face a 25yd penalty...

So teams dressing only 2 QB's were taking an awful chance last year, because if both QB got injured, you were looking at perpetual 25yd penalties.. or playing your punter every O down.  Which seems ridiculous


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: the paw on February 14, 2020, 10:45:24 PM
He's saying that if the rule says you have to have a designated QB or kicker on the field every offensie down.. or face a 25yd penalty...

So teams dressing only 2 QB's were taking an awful chance last year, because if both QB got injured, you were looking at perpetual 25yd penalties.. or playing your punter every O down.  Which seems ridiculous

Sometimes you have to use common sense when reading rules.  Whether the rules state 3 designated QBs or 2, if all of your QBs get hurt, they aren't going to give 25 yard penalties for not having one on the field. 


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TBURGESS on February 15, 2020, 01:57:32 PM
Sometimes you have to use common sense when reading rules.  Whether the rules state 3 designated QBs or 2, if all of your QBs get hurt, they aren't going to give 25 yard penalties for not having one on the field. 
Your own post quotes the 2019 rule which states: NOTE: A team is required to have one designated quarterback or kicker on the field for each of its offensive plays. and you're saying they will likely to just change that to 2. That means putting your kicker on the field if you lose 2 QB's to avoid a penalty. I don't see them doing that. I expect the entire NOTE will be eliminated for 2020 so you can play without a designated QB on each offensive play.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: the paw on February 15, 2020, 03:19:44 PM
Your own post quotes the 2019 rule which states: NOTE: A team is required to have one designated quarterback or kicker on the field for each of its offensive plays. and you're saying they will likely to just change that to 2. That means putting your kicker on the field if you lose 2 QB's to avoid a penalty. I don't see them doing that. I expect the entire NOTE will be eliminated for 2020 so you can play without a designated QB on each offensive play.

I don't think they will get rid of the note, I think they want to keep the QB designation and requirement.

I suppose if they are revising the rule for the pedantic and obtuse reader, they might say "required to have a designated QB or kicker on all offensive plays, unless they are all injured.". Rules and statutes attempt to be comprehensive, but usually rely on the use of common sense to determine the application in situations that are rare or extremely unlikely.  To be 100 % exhaustive would make the rules unreadable.


Title: Re: New 2 QB rule clarification?
Post by: TecnoGenius on February 15, 2020, 03:47:36 PM
Well, glad to see I was correct in that there is a 1 minimum and 1 maximum rule for QBs on the field.

The reason they heretofore didn't write the rule as "unless all designated QBs are injured" is because there never has been a situation where all 3 QBs have been injured.

But now Ambrosie in his Infinite Wisdom(tm) has lowered that to 2 QBs.  As we've seen, there's around a 25% chance each year of one game seeing both QBs injured.  We could very well end up seeing what happens vis a vis the rules as written vs "common sense".

I could 100% see the refs enforcing the 25-yd penalty each snap rule.  And if they don't, I would want MOS to be in their ear forcing them to.  The refs have to enforce the rules as written, not as they figure they should be.

The more we explore this situation, the more abundantly clear it is that Ambrosie forced this through without thinking it through.  There are all these knock-on effects and rulebook issues that no one is addressing.  The new elephant in the room is that Ambrosie says "carry a 3rd QB" (as DI I suppose) when the rulebook clearly states that such a 3rd "QB" would never be allowed to be the sole QB on the field!  It's so asinine.

I would hope someone is bringing this up with pie in the sky Ambrosie.  Clarification is required and rulebook changes are obviously necessary.