Observations on the Rider Game

[the paw]

That's not exactly correct without understanding which import isn't added to the roster with Bailey becoming a DI. The number of imports is a fixed quantity. Adding Agudosi means 1 import needs to come off.

Normally a DI replaces another import on the same side of the ball. The Nationalized American is a twist in that he can replace a Canadian 49% of the time. Without rule clarification would that mean we'd have to take Bryant or Hardrick off the game day roster ( for example ) to add Agudosi?

That would be an example under the usual DI rules if we are to assume 3 starting import receivers.

Again, your OT example is a red herring.  The simple answer is that if Bailey becomes a DI, then a current DI would come off the roster.  So to state another way, Agudosi takes Baileys spot, and Bailey displaces a DI. Which is exactly why it won't happen, we need 2 DIs for kicker and returner, another at DE and one for ST as a LB or DB.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

They don't need to change anything, it's simple in implementation. The American DIs can just rotate with Canadians as well as Americans as long as they don't play more than 49%. I think the hold up would be how to enforce and how to track.

Easy solution put a micro-transmitter chip in each helmet and let a computer keep track of player movement.

[Jesse]

Easy solution put a micro-transmitter chip in each helmet and let a computer keep track of player movement.

The CFL:

"Best we can do is a guy in the press box with a golf pencil"

[Blue In BC]

Again, your OT example is a red herring.  The simple answer is that if Bailey becomes a DI, then a current DI would come off the roster.  So to state another way, Agudosi takes Baileys spot, and Bailey displaces a DI. Which is exactly why it won't happen, we need 2 DIs for kicker and returner, another at DE and one for ST as a LB or DB.

Which part of the DI replacing someone on the same side of the ball did you miss in my explanation? That other DI would have to have been on offence in that scenario. If we normally had a ratio using an import RB we might have had an import RB as a DI.

We don't, so based on our current configuration that would have to come from the OL if we had decided to have a DI OL. A DI going in means an import comes off on that play.

Jeffcoat or Jefferson goes off and Haba goes in at DE or DT for Walker. He can't go in on offence without an import coming off. Obviously he's not a Nationalized American.

Grant goes in and one of the import receivers goes off. Technically an OT could come off in that situation but less likely.

It is not just a matter of taking a different DI off the roster.

In the past we saw an example of a DB / receiver that could play on both sides of the ball. He was a Rider then a Lion ( can't remember his name at the moment ). That's very rare. Another example would be a 2 way OL/DL.

So I disagree my comment is a red herring. It's moot if the CFL junks this for 2023.

[TecnoGenius]

He is saying our starting 5 receivers should be Demski, Lawler, Agudosi, Schoen and Woli/Bailey.  That would be permissible, would require no other ratio adjustment on D or elsewhere.

The reason it doesn't work, is that it requires Bailey to become a DI, and that doesn't compute.  You and I agree fully on that point, given how the Bombers use DIs.  My only point WS that the 3 national receivers was a red herring in this case.

Yes, my example idea, which is in no way a suggestion, just an illustration of what we could do with FAKENAT rules and Bailey.

That's not exactly correct without understanding which import isn't added to the roster with Bailey becoming a DI. The number of imports is a fixed quantity. Adding Agudosi means 1 import needs to come off.

Yes, in my example idea 1 import on D, who was a DI, would come off.

Again, your OT example is a red herring.  The simple answer is that if Bailey becomes a DI, then a current DI would come off the roster.  So to state another way, Agudosi takes Baileys spot, and Bailey displaces a DI. Which is exactly why it won't happen, we need 2 DIs for kicker and returner, another at DE and one for ST as a LB or DB.

Yes, it is a far-fetched scenario and no one ever said it would happen.  But it could happen.  We could use it that way.  Just because we always DI a DE (or whatever on D) doesn't mean we have to DI a DE.  That's just something we've done and we like it.  It's not written in stone.

Let's pretend the 2 J's are in peak health and don't require much rotation.  Let's pretend Agudosi is so amazing you can't un-AR him.  Lawler comes back from suspension.  Let's say Woli is underperforming (vs his norm).  Let's say the D is going gangbusters and doesn't need the "help" from the extra DI.  Why wouldn't we DI Bailey and make him the FAKENAT on Woli's spot??

Which part of the DI replacing someone on the same side of the ball did you miss in my explanation? That other DI would have to have been on offence in that scenario. If we normally had a ratio using an import RB we might have had an import RB as a DI.

You're the one that is caught up in the inability to fathom we could stop using a DI on the D roster and move the DI to O roster.  There is nothing stopping this.  Did you never read "What If...?" by Marvel comics in the 80's?  ... Hy-po-the-ti-cals

Oh ya, if Grant qualifies as FAKENAT(?), just replace the word Grant for Bailey.  Without any roster changes we can have Grant as the 4th IMP WR on the field half the game.  Ya, he's usually not terribly effective, but if Woli is having a garbage season and Grant's sweeps and hands vastly improve, you never know.

Maybe the Bailey scenario is not the one we should use going forward because it's virtually impossible it happens (we all agree).  Maybe we need to find a similar scenario on D... If we had a very good vet FAKENAT DT that would make the perfect scenario.  That's why Lemon becomes so appealing, even though he's a DE, perhaps we can find a way to FAKENAT him into the DL somehow with interesting schemes and rotation...

The crux of the argument is not Bailey this or O that, it's "how does FAKENAT work for us right now".  As in using the personnel we already have, or maybe with a strategic addition.  Remember the movie Moneyball?  I bet some nerd on some coaching staff is working out all the angles on FAKENAT and is building a roster that will maximize FAKENATiness to basically eliminate as much sub-par NATiness as possible, for "free".  If you structured all your DIs around FAKENAT subbing, and your DIs were not quite starter material but better than NAT material, you could really improve your on-field team.  I can really see C.Jones going all-in on this...

[Blue In BC]

Yes, my example idea, which is in no way a suggestion, just an illustration of what we could do with FAKENAT rules and Bailey.

Yes, in my example idea 1 import on D, who was a DI, would come off.

Yes, it is a far-fetched scenario and no one ever said it would happen.  But it could happen.  We could use it that way.  Just because we always DI a DE (or whatever on D) doesn't mean we have to DI a DE.  That's just something we've done and we like it.  It's not written in stone.

Let's pretend the 2 J's are in peak health and don't require much rotation.  Let's pretend Agudosi is so amazing you can't un-AR him.  Lawler comes back from suspension.  Let's say Woli is underperforming (vs his norm).  Let's say the D is going gangbusters and doesn't need the "help" from the extra DI.  Why wouldn't we DI Bailey and make him the FAKENAT on Woli's spot??

You're the one that is caught up in the inability to fathom we could stop using a DI on the D roster and move the DI to O roster.  There is nothing stopping this.  Did you never read "What If...?" by Marvel comics in the 80's?  ... Hy-po-the-ti-cals

Oh ya, if Grant qualifies as FAKENAT(?), just replace the word Grant for Bailey.  Without any roster changes we can have Grant as the 4th IMP WR on the field half the game.  Ya, he's usually not terribly effective, but if Woli is having a garbage season and Grant's sweeps and hands vastly improve, you never know.

Maybe the Bailey scenario is not the one we should use going forward because it's virtually impossible it happens (we all agree).  Maybe we need to find a similar scenario on D... If we had a very good vet FAKENAT DT that would make the perfect scenario.  That's why Lemon becomes so appealing, even though he's a DE, perhaps we can find a way to FAKENAT him into the DL somehow with interesting schemes and rotation...

The crux of the argument is not Bailey this or O that, it's "how does FAKENAT work for us right now".  As in using the personnel we already have, or maybe with a strategic addition.  Remember the movie Moneyball?  I bet some nerd on some coaching staff is working out all the angles on FAKENAT and is building a roster that will maximize FAKENATiness to basically eliminate as much sub-par NATiness as possible, for "free".  If you structured all your DIs around FAKENAT subbing, and your DIs were not quite starter material but better than NAT material, you could really improve your on-field team.  I can really see C.Jones going all-in on this...

Clearly you aren't paying attention to what I said. That's nothing new.

A DI replaces another import on the same side of the ball that he goes in to replace The fakenat is a twist where he can go in for a Canadian part of the time. That rule hasn't been figured out yet. If that is happening then we're really " starting " an extra import 49% of the time. I don't think that was the intent of the idea.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Clearly you aren't paying attention to what I said. That's nothing new.

A DI replaces another import on the same side of the ball that he goes in to replace The fakenat is a twist where he can go in for a Canadian part of the time. That rule hasn't been figured out yet. If that is happening then we're really " starting " an extra import 49% of the time. I don't think that was the intent of the idea.

That is absolutely the intent of the rule.

[the paw]

Which part of the DI replacing someone on the same side of the ball did you miss in my explanation? That other DI would have to have been on offence in that scenario. If we normally had a ratio using an import RB we might have had an import RB as a DI.

We don't, so based on our current configuration that would have to come from the OL if we had decided to have a DI OL. A DI going in means an import comes off on that play.

Jeffcoat or Jefferson goes off and Haba goes in at DE or DT for Walker. He can't go in on offence without an import coming off. Obviously he's not a Nationalized American.

Grant goes in and one of the import receivers goes off. Technically an OT could come off in that situation but less likely.

It is not just a matter of taking a different DI off the roster.

In the past we saw an example of a DB / receiver that could play on both sides of the ball. He was a Rider then a Lion ( can't remember his name at the moment ). That's very rare. Another example would be a 2 way OL/DL.

So I disagree my comment is a red herring. It's moot if the CFL junks this for 2023.

You are so intellectually rigid it is painful to watch.

You set the DI's before each game.  You can put all 4 of them on Offence, all 4 on Defence or any mix between.  The "same side of the ball" only means something in terms of who the specific DI comes in for.

So, if you hypothetically set Bailey as one of your DIs then he comes in for Woli, but he can also sub for any other offensive player.  So if Agudosi, Schoen or Lawler go down, he can come in.  The whole point to the new rule is that for 49% of the plays you can take a National (Wolitarsky) out, and use someone like Bailey WITHOUT HAVING TO SIT ANOTHER IMPORT.  Otherwise, there would be no benefit to the rule at all.  

By the way, that's similar to the situation Janarion Grant was in last year.  He could sub for anyone on offence, but if he did, there was no nonsense about having to sub out an OT to make it balance.  

[Blue In BC]

You are so intellectually rigid it is painful to watch.

You set the DI's before each game.  You can put all 4 of them on Offence, all 4 on Defence or any mix between.  The "same side of the ball" only means something in terms of who the specific DI comes in for.

So, if you hypothetically set Bailey as one of your DIs then he comes in for Woli, but he can also sub for any other offensive player.  So if Agudosi, Schoen or Lawler go down, he can come in.  The whole point to the new rule is that for 49% of the plays you can take a National (Wolitarsky) out, and use someone like Bailey WITHOUT HAVING TO SIT ANOTHER IMPORT.  Otherwise, there would be no benefit to the rule at all.  

By the way, that's similar to the situation Janarion Grant was in last year.  He could sub for anyone on offence, but if he did, there was no nonsense about having to sub out an OT to make it balance.  

I completely understand your 2nd sentence. I'm arguing about the " who the DI comes in for ". Not whether you classify a DI as a defensive or offensive player. That is not  part of the DI requirement. I even gave examples where a DI might be capable of being a 2 way player.

In 2022 if Grant came into the game he'd have to replace another import. Suggesting he could replace an import OT was not outside the possibility since our backup OL are Canadians.

If either of Bryant or Hardrick were nicked for a short time, we could have gone to a 4 import receiver set. Since Grant is not better than any of our starting receivers that wouldn't happen. I never said he had to replace an import OL, I said he could since we have Canadian back up OL.

But in that instance we could pull also pull our RB and go with a 6 receiver set while a 4th Canadian OL.

[Blue In BC]

That is absolutely the intent of the rule.

No the intent was to extend that longevity of older imports. The ability to replace a Canadian was the side effect rather than the goal IMO. Otherwise a Nationalized player wouldn't need to be a veteran, he could be a rookie.

There was a suggestion that they could mandate that some DI's had to be 3 year veterans. Two for example. I don't know that would fly legally but it would accomplish the ( goal ) of prolonging import veterans potentially.


Are we having fun yet? The 1st game is Thursday so can't see this happening yet.

[DM83]

Great discussion.
But is it only you two involved?

Why don?t we discuss the Marvel universe?

[Pigskin]

It also way off topic. We should try and get back to that.