rookies first year starters

Pete · June 16, 2024, 11:28:01 PM

was wondering how others think about our rookies/1st year starters so far, id grade them as follows ( I know its early but first impressions)
Haba B thought he was off to a good start til he got hurt
Fox same
Adams b+ this guys a player but should be dt
Bonds b I haven't seen him picked on
ford c+ had some issues first game and cleaned it up against Ottawa
Chris-Ike c some special teams impact but would like to see him play more
Clerius b there is potential, maybe like BC's Cotoy?
Mitchell c- based on return ability
Wilson d shown nothing
Dobson c+ oline as a whole has been average
Lofton c+ as dobson, but better than I first thought

Ayers, Bridges haven't played enough to know

Blueforlife · June 16, 2024, 11:48:12 PM

Agree with most of this

Blue In BC · June 17, 2024, 12:39:24 AM

Who is Jones? I agree with most of your comments. Some of the rookies may develop into very good players.

Blueforlife · June 17, 2024, 12:50:20 AM

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 17, 2024, 12:39:24 AMWho is Jones? I agree with most of your comments. Some of the rookies may develop into very good players.

Yeah I wasn't sure about Jones either

Pete · June 17, 2024, 12:51:05 AM

meant ford -- corrected it

kkc60 · June 17, 2024, 02:09:00 AM

I would agree all around, although i would put Haba at a B+ and would include Wheatfall, giving him a B.

TecnoGenius · June 17, 2024, 08:25:36 PM

Haba was looking real good. Adams has been good and shows lots of fire, which we desperately need.

Bonds has been good by just not being torched.

I think Ford will work out great, he just had a bad start. Holm had some bad early games in his rookie year also. But this one is more a gut feeling than what we've seen on field so far.

Lofton gets a B+ from me. He's not the one screwing up all this pass-pro. However, our run game stinking might be partially due to him, if he's being asked to do all the road grading Yoshi used to do.

Dobson isn't working out yet, and may need to be replaced. His A-gap with Ko-man is back to square one in terms of the same problems Ko-man/Gray had. Dobson was a great #6 though, and could still be that for us.

Why can't we find a 3rd IMP OL like Bond was for us? Holy smokes that should a) cheap and b) easy. Just do it, ask questions later. Adding 3rd IMP OL in 2016 is when we started turning our team around and our QBs actually started having time.

theaardvark · June 17, 2024, 08:56:57 PM

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 17, 2024, 08:25:36 PMHaba was looking real good. Adams has been good and shows lots of fire, which we desperately need.

Bonds has been good by just not being torched.

I think Ford will work out great, he just had a bad start. Holm had some bad early games in his rookie year also. But this one is more a gut feeling than what we've seen on field so far.

Lofton gets a B+ from me. He's not the one screwing up all this pass-pro. However, our run game stinking might be partially due to him, if he's being asked to do all the road grading Yoshi used to do.

Dobson isn't working out yet, and may need to be replaced. His A-gap with Ko-man is back to square one in terms of the same problems Ko-man/Gray had. Dobson was a great #6 though, and could still be that for us.

Why can't we find a 3rd IMP OL like Bond was for us? Holy smokes that should a) cheap and b) easy. Just do it, ask questions later. Adding 3rd IMP OL in 2016 is when we started turning our team around and our QBs actually started having time.

Why not start 5 Imp Oline? We have the ratio busters to do that...

Maybe because at OG, or C, there are lots of Nats who are every bit as good as an Int.

We still have Vanterpool and Randolph of the PR, if the team thought either would upgrade our Oline, they'd be starting. But the preseason games where we started them at OG were not spectacular...

TecnoGenius · June 18, 2024, 03:04:45 AM

Quote from: theaardvark on June 17, 2024, 08:56:57 PMWhy not start 5 Imp Oline? We have the ratio busters to do that...

Maybe because at OG, or C, there are lots of Nats who are every bit as good as an Int.

Yes, NATs can be excellent or often better than IMP at guard. But not always. There are for sure some weaker NATs playing guard in the CFL right now, and most teams are stuck that way because of ratio. FS and OL and 5th WR are the #1 places CFL teams "hide" their NATs. How often would an IMP be better if no ratio existed?

Look at our run game and pass-pro when Desjar was LG. Then remember with Gray. Now Dobson. Downgrade every time, starts to add up.

Look at our run game and pass-pro when Couture was C. Now look at Ko-man. It's also been downhill.

Ya, it's not a megaton worse, but it's still worse. And our O is clearly feeling it in the pass game and run game. We may have finally reached the tipping point of "badness" where it all falls apart.

Might an IMP OG a la Bond fix that?? Hey, can't hurt to try.

Quote from: theaardvark on June 17, 2024, 08:56:57 PMWe still have Vanterpool and Randolph of the PR, if the team thought either would upgrade our Oline, they'd be starting. But the preseason games where we started them at OG were not spectacular...

I'd rather look out there to see if there are any vet IMP OTs that have also played guard in college that weren't good enough to make rosters as Ts, but might excel at G. In fact, CFL (virtually) only ever employs IMP T's, so surely there are a whackton of natural Gs out there just sitting on the couch? A massively untapped market.

Sure its unconventional, but what do we have to lose? Focus. On. The. O.