Recent posts

[costing the CFL literally millions and all the dev/feeder leagues/systems hundreds of millions]

#21

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by theaardvark - Today at 02:16:35 AM

That would be all well and good, except the 110Y->100Y change is a monumental shift and undertaking costing the CFL literally millions and all the dev/feeder leagues/systems hundreds of millions.

Once this is done (and propagated to all levels), I'm pretty sure it can never be undone.  As such it requires a bigger justification than what has been provided to us.  A hope and a wish of "more scoring" = "more fans" is simply not enough.

I have an idea: CFL should run some PS games in the USA on a 100Y field, with the posts at the back.  Run half down there.  Half up here.  Compare the results between 110 and 100.  Even in the PS, you should be able to draw some conclusions.

I have another idea, Johnston can say he "hears the fans" and do all the changes in '26 and '27, but save the 100Y field for '28.  See how the GP move and EZ changes affect things first -- and give more time for fans/pundits to debate the 100Y field.

The goal posts move backwards 5 yards, and some paint.  Because the new field is shorter than the old, no changes need t be made to turf.  There's a hole to patch where the posts move from, that's it.

And some paint.

Hundreds of millions?  What, is it solid gold paint?

#22

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by theaardvark - Today at 02:12:37 AM

Except there's going to be a lot more "short punts", and short punts where the teams are hemmed in on a small amount of field.

Teams will be punting from the opponent 40 all the time now (because it's a 62Y FG attempt!).  Good teams will have a P that can coffin corner in the air: NO return at all!  Teams with a bad P will likely be dropping most punts onto the field around the 5.  The cover team from the 40 will be all over any return, and the every returner will be penned at the rail (no one will kick to the middle -- too short and high chance of it rolling into EZ).  Again, NO returns.

Thus I think we'll actually get LESS "good" returns, more coffins, more overall punting vs FGs, and the "going for it more on 3rd & long/medium" will NOT materialize.  The whole thing could backfire spectacularly.

Most of the best returns happen when the returner takes the ball in the air and hits the cover team straight on, and busts through.  Which will be more of the returns in the new game.  As you say, "hemmed in".

I'm willing to give it the chance, and see what the changes make.

The other option is watching the NFL, which I have watched a few games lately in the background at poker, and its been pretty sad considering this is supposed to be the best of the best.
 

#23

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by TBURGESS - Today at 01:59:27 AM

The CFL has promised that offenses will start nearer to the opponents goal line.
It is a verifiable fact that shorter drives equal more touchdowns.

The NFL did not change the field size when the goal posts moved.

Did the NFL change any rules in 1974 that made drives shorter? I don't know. If they did not, then the comparison would be invalid.

The CFL hasn't made that promise. The claim is that shorter drives = more TD's, that doesn't make it a fact. Shorter field doesn't equal shorter drives anyway. 

The proof is basic common sense that a child could understand. Allow me explain:

Next time you're on a football field (assuming you've ever been on one) start at the goal line and run to the other end of the field and "score" a touchdown. Note how hard that is. You could even write it down on scale of 1 to 10.  If you want to make it more thrilling: invite a friend and have them line up about 7 yards away from you and have them try to stop you from scoring.

Then do the same at centre and note how hard that is. Note that it's about half as difficult, physically.

Then do the same on the 20 and note how hard that is. Following?

You'll find that the further you start from the end zone the harder it is to score.

(Without adding too much complexity here, this is also why a fundamental principle of football exists, punting, should you be curious.)

Now extrapolate your experience to the game of football and discover to your amazement, that the shorter the field, the easier it will be to score.

You might have a point if we were talking about a 20,50 or 75 yard difference, but we're not. 

You're assuming, wrongly, 5-10 closer to the opponents' goal line means extra TD's. What will actually happen is teams, who can't get FG's without being 15 yards closer, will strategically kick inside the 10. The 10 yards closer means 1 fewer first downs, but most of the time, they won't even get past centre (50). Note that the 10 yards in the middle of the field are 10 yards that kickers don't have to kick past so it's easier to push the opponents back that 'extra' 10 yards. 

[I'd go further and suggest we may see an entirely new group of imports taking spots across the roster.]

#24

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: Free Agent Acquisition

Last post by Throw Long Bannatyne - Today at 01:29:28 AM

There were some pros in our use of the 1 game IR. Overall it wasn't very effective IMO. We choose poorly in some of our free agent acquisitions and rode that into the ground.

I'd add Echols and Logon as questionable choices at the end of the season. I would have bumped them back to the PR. I see no future for either in 2026.

Vanterpool might make the AR in 2026 but we've signed a number of import OL earlier than normal. That may be an indication of change. I wouldn't say he's a lock. Lofton is a potential free agent and he's probably not back either.

I'd go further and suggest we may see an entirely new group of imports taking spots across the roster.

Pretty unlikely, if you're talking about the O-line, name the last rookie O-lineman they started?  Might have to stretch back as far as Suhk Chungh. There's nothing inherently fair about their vetting process, but they've stuck to it for almost a decade, so I don't expect a radical deviation as long as MOS is the HC. 

#25

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: 1st & 10 | The Blue Bomber...

Last post by Pete - December 07, 2025, 11:53:10 PM

Who's Edwards?

sorry that  sb tim white, hamilton could free up 200k by moving on from him to use towards Olivera.
That together with cap increase might make it feasible depending what they do at qb

#26

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: 1st & 10 | The Blue Bomber...

Last post by RebusRankin - December 07, 2025, 09:59:24 PM

I would like to hang on to Holm, Nichols and Kramdi. They are 3 of the most talented and experienced players on a defense that actually performed pretty well if you can get over the frustration of applying no pressure on the QB. They also play positions (HB and SAM) that are not that easy to fill with young inexperienced players. If some rookie lights it up in camp, they could always rethink things, but I would be trying to sign them. The others, I agree with.

I have no issues with those 3 DBs just pointing out its expensive to pay those 3 140,000-150,000 each, so one may go to save $

#27

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: 1st & 10 | The Blue Bomber...

Last post by Blue In BC - December 07, 2025, 09:02:37 PM

The fact the Bombers are slower than normal signing their own free agents suggests to me they might hit the free agency market hard this off season.

That would seem like a dangerous approach IMO. Free agency hits like a hurricane. You won't know who you want will accept offers and current players could be lost.

There will be a significant list of players we want to retain. That's guesswork on our part since some decisions will be made on SMS aspects. Offers may have been made and counter offers are being considered by both sides.

I'd expect some re-signings to start showing up as early as this week. Only about 10 of 250 potential free agents have been re-signed so far.

Hopefully we focus on the Canadians in the early going.

#28

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: 1st & 10 | The Blue Bomber...

Last post by ModAdmin - December 07, 2025, 08:46:28 PM

The fact the Bombers are slower than normal signing their own free agents suggests to me they might hit the free agency market hard this off season.

#29

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: CFL (Non-Bombers) off-seas...

Last post by bunker - December 07, 2025, 08:43:11 PM

I'd pay Brady what it takes, and use marketing money to make the salary cap structure work. We are the most financially successful franchise in the league. Brady is a hometown star who is an excellent running back, generally pretty durable, has good hands as a receiver, and is also a good blocker, which is crucial in a passing league. It would be a crime to lose him. Especially if we end up paying the money saved by letting him go, to players similar to Logan, J. Jones and Mitchell.

[Edwards]

#30

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: 1st & 10 | The Blue Bomber...

Last post by bunker - December 07, 2025, 08:38:05 PM

Hamilton would be an option, they bid big for him last time, and could free up cap space by not resigning Edwards. Brady would feel right at home with the hamilton bombers/err tigercats.

Who's Edwards?