Blue Bombers Forum
October 24, 2021, 09:48:00 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 33
  Print  
Author Topic: 2020 Free Agents  (Read 73804 times)
booch
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2883


« Reply #315 on: February 04, 2020, 09:38:36 PM »

The problem with asking guys to take a shave is that you have a couple of teams in the East that are so horrid defensively that they may toss some cash around to proven guys like Micah, Solly, or even Jefferson just to get back to respectability on defence. SSK may ask guys to take a shave but realistically who in their right mind is taking a shave to stay in Regina. I actually don't mean that facetiously, although I don't mind if it's taken that way. Regina is not a hot spot for FA's no matter how much their deluded fans claim they are. It takes cash for them to sign there.

100% agree...guys aren't gonna take a shave to stay there...and they wont have to because teams will be bidding for them...
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29918



« Reply #316 on: February 04, 2020, 11:01:20 PM »

Bethel-Thompson can say whatever he wants. It means absolutely nothing right now.

In any event, it'll be good for the Argos to have a proven QB tandem if Nichols does sign there, regardless of who's the starter a few months from now.


Toronto will definately have 2 known QB's as starters, but we don't know how Nichols shoulder is, and we don't know what MBT will do now that teams have had a look at him for a year.  So. while they have a potentially good tandem, we have no idea if either will deliver.  And it doesn't seem like Toronto thinks either is a given, otherwise one would have got a deal like Collaros, Arbuckle, Fajardo, Adams... $400-$500k...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5078


« Reply #317 on: February 05, 2020, 06:44:21 AM »

Could the Riders not use Solly as a "fake Canadian" with the new rules and start him, or start "a CDN like Hurl as an example" and rotate he with Solly? If that is the case with this new ratio tweek he could be worth that to the Riders, would he not be. They could go with a cheaper CDN MLB as the required CDN, and rotate he and Solly with Solly being able to take a few breathers in the game and help preserve his beating, coming off an injury and not being younger could this not be almost a perfect scenario for a guy like Solly?

Or am I off base to the new rule?

Those rules have drastically changed in the new CBA. Solly can now play FT as a NAT starter under the new ratio with no need for anyone to fake an injury.

Looks like we need a new "FAKENAT rules" thread!  I'm nearly positive I understand it now, and you're (3rdand1.5) completely off base.

The best explanation I read was Walter's interview and the Ambrosie "come down on them like a ton of bricks" comment.  Seriously, anyone who hasn't read it should read it.

Solly could be one of the 3 "designated FAKENATs" (DEFANAT?).  So he can be one of the 3 starters that must be DEFANAT (or real NAT, but no one will do that).  Hurl can come in and sub for Solly (NATs can sub for DEFANATs).  Yes, GCn19 is sort of right, but Solly has to be 1 of the 3, not any one of the 10.

If you don't designate Solly as one of the 3, and you start Hurl at MLB, then Solly can NOT sub in for Hurl... unless Hurl is "injured".  Solly in this case would not be a DEFANAT, he would just be a FAKENAT: simply a vet without the designated status.  This is the situation that can allow teams to "cheat" with "stubbed toes" and that Ambrosie said he'd kill any abusers.

The stumbling block for me that Walters finally cleared up is there are actually two new categories, not one: FAKENATs and DEFANATs.  Any vet (of the new 3/4 rules) is instantly a FAKENAT.  But only 3 will be designated per game as the DEFANATs, and those 3 start as the "3 of 10".  Only realNATs and FAKENATs can sub in for a DEFANAT.  DIs cannot sub in for DEFANATs.  In that sense, the 3 DEFANAT guys make a coach's life more difficult, not easier, as they are more limited on who can sub in for them (no DIs), not less.

Also, I think it's completely wrong to say there are not "10 starting NATs".  Again, it's really a case of a hidden new category.  Sure, you could start 10 NATs, but no team will ever do this.  The 10 starting NATs are really the same starting 7 NATs we're used to plus 3 DEFANATs.  The only time you'll see a team go 8/2 would be under the same circumstances a couple of teams started 1 or 2 games last year with 8 NATs: injury or poor roster management.  I would be huge $$ you'll never see a team do 9/1 or 10/0 in this new scheme.  It's easier and cheaper to roster good vet IMPs (FAKENATs) than IMP-calibre NATs.

The Ambrosie threat is proof Walter's take on this is correct.  Ambrosie wouldn't have to threaten anyone if the FAKENAT replacing an injured NAT in-game wasn't a real thing.

Smart teams should coach up their realNATs on getting really good at faking injuries.  I fully expect SSK to do this.  WRs could jump in the air real high and land on an arm or something as they whiff on a catch.  Writhe in pain a bit.  Voila, you get to put Arcenaux or Roosevelt or some other great player in place of a an ELC no-name STer realNAT!  It's even easier on D, just spear someone and act all groggy: you don't even need to pull the player, wait for the spotter to do it for you!  Just make sure you whirl around and stumble and walk into team mates.  Prove it's not a real injury, Ambrosie, even if they pull it every game...

We should get right on hiring a new positional coach: Chief Injury Faker Coach.
Logged

Never go full Rider!
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5078


« Reply #318 on: February 05, 2020, 06:51:30 AM »

Bethel-Thompson can say whatever he wants. It means absolutely nothing right now.

In any event, it'll be good for the Argos to have a proven QB tandem if Nichols does sign there, regardless of who's the starter a few months from now.

If TOR hasn't improved their OL then I'd 100% start MBT over Nichols.  MBT can survive back there, Nichols can not.  And I'm Nichols #1 fan.

If Nichols is just going to be a backup, I'm so disappointed it's not here.  TOR might be making the smarter move at QB(s) than we are...

Guess Nichols will wait until it out until a CFL team loses their starter and is desperate for a QB. Eventually this day will come.

This might actually be Nichols' best bet, and he should seriously consider it.  I'd wager he'd be earning starter $$ somewhere by labor day if he just waits it out.  He'd need at least $250k guaranteed to be a backup somewhere to beat sitting out 9 games to get $500k (divided by 2).  There are so many teams now without legit backups that basically after 1 (maybe 2) QBs goes down, Nichols is da man.  WPG, SSK, CGY, BC, EDM, OTT, TOR all have no legit (i.e. proven, non-crap) backup.  And the guys that are left, well, I'd take Nichols over each and every one of them!  Patience Matty, patience...
Logged

Never go full Rider!
GCn19
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25189


« Reply #319 on: February 05, 2020, 01:28:17 PM »

Looks like we need a new "FAKENAT rules" thread!  I'm nearly positive I understand it now, and you're (3rdand1.5) completely off base.

The best explanation I read was Walter's interview and the Ambrosie "come down on them like a ton of bricks" comment.  Seriously, anyone who hasn't read it should read it.

Solly could be one of the 3 "designated FAKENATs" (DEFANAT?).  So he can be one of the 3 starters that must be DEFANAT (or real NAT, but no one will do that).  Hurl can come in and sub for Solly (NATs can sub for DEFANATs).  Yes, GCn19 is sort of right, but Solly has to be 1 of the 3, not any one of the 10.

If you don't designate Solly as one of the 3, and you start Hurl at MLB, then Solly can NOT sub in for Hurl... unless Hurl is "injured".  Solly in this case would not be a DEFANAT, he would just be a FAKENAT: simply a vet without the designated status.  This is the situation that can allow teams to "cheat" with "stubbed toes" and that Ambrosie said he'd kill any abusers.

The stumbling block for me that Walters finally cleared up is there are actually two new categories, not one: FAKENATs and DEFANATs.  Any vet (of the new 3/4 rules) is instantly a FAKENAT.  But only 3 will be designated per game as the DEFANATs, and those 3 start as the "3 of 10".  Only realNATs and FAKENATs can sub in for a DEFANAT.  DIs cannot sub in for DEFANATs.  In that sense, the 3 DEFANAT guys make a coach's life more difficult, not easier, as they are more limited on who can sub in for them (no DIs), not less.

Also, I think it's completely wrong to say there are not "10 starting NATs".  Again, it's really a case of a hidden new category.  Sure, you could start 10 NATs, but no team will ever do this.  The 10 starting NATs are really the same starting 7 NATs we're used to plus 3 DEFANATs.  The only time you'll see a team go 8/2 would be under the same circumstances a couple of teams started 1 or 2 games last year with 8 NATs: injury or poor roster management.  I would be huge $$ you'll never see a team do 9/1 or 10/0 in this new scheme.  It's easier and cheaper to roster good vet IMPs (FAKENATs) than IMP-calibre NATs.

The Ambrosie threat is proof Walter's take on this is correct.  Ambrosie wouldn't have to threaten anyone if the FAKENAT replacing an injured NAT in-game wasn't a real thing.

Smart teams should coach up their realNATs on getting really good at faking injuries.  I fully expect SSK to do this.  WRs could jump in the air real high and land on an arm or something as they whiff on a catch.  Writhe in pain a bit.  Voila, you get to put Arcenaux or Roosevelt or some other great player in place of a an ELC no-name STer realNAT!  It's even easier on D, just spear someone and act all groggy: you don't even need to pull the player, wait for the spotter to do it for you!  Just make sure you whirl around and stumble and walk into team mates.  Prove it's not a real injury, Ambrosie, even if they pull it every game...

We should get right on hiring a new positional coach: Chief Injury Faker Coach.


You must maintain 7 NATs in the starting lineup, injury or no injury, is what I understood.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
Pigskin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7458



« Reply #320 on: February 05, 2020, 02:14:38 PM »

I would say we have 4 players I would like to see signed before Tuesday. Jefferson, Nevis, Roh, and Miles. The rest can test there value on the FA market.
Logged

Don't go through life looking in the rearview mirror.
3rdand1.5
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3701


« Reply #321 on: February 05, 2020, 02:42:09 PM »

Looks like we need a new "FAKENAT rules" thread!  I'm nearly positive I understand it now, and you're (3rdand1.5) completely off base.

The best explanation I read was Walter's interview and the Ambrosie "come down on them like a ton of bricks" comment.  Seriously, anyone who hasn't read it should read it.

Solly could be one of the 3 "designated FAKENATs" (DEFANAT?).  So he can be one of the 3 starters that must be DEFANAT (or real NAT, but no one will do that).  Hurl can come in and sub for Solly (NATs can sub for DEFANATs).  Yes, GCn19 is sort of right, but Solly has to be 1 of the 3, not any one of the 10.

If you don't designate Solly as one of the 3, and you start Hurl at MLB, then Solly can NOT sub in for Hurl... unless Hurl is "injured".  Solly in this case would not be a DEFANAT, he would just be a FAKENAT: simply a vet without the designated status.  This is the situation that can allow teams to "cheat" with "stubbed toes" and that Ambrosie said he'd kill any abusers.

The stumbling block for me that Walters finally cleared up is there are actually two new categories, not one: FAKENATs and DEFANATs.  Any vet (of the new 3/4 rules) is instantly a FAKENAT.  But only 3 will be designated per game as the DEFANATs, and those 3 start as the "3 of 10".  Only realNATs and FAKENATs can sub in for a DEFANAT.  DIs cannot sub in for DEFANATs.  In that sense, the 3 DEFANAT guys make a coach's life more difficult, not easier, as they are more limited on who can sub in for them (no DIs), not less.

Also, I think it's completely wrong to say there are not "10 starting NATs".  Again, it's really a case of a hidden new category.  Sure, you could start 10 NATs, but no team will ever do this.  The 10 starting NATs are really the same starting 7 NATs we're used to plus 3 DEFANATs.  The only time you'll see a team go 8/2 would be under the same circumstances a couple of teams started 1 or 2 games last year with 8 NATs: injury or poor roster management.  I would be huge $$ you'll never see a team do 9/1 or 10/0 in this new scheme.  It's easier and cheaper to roster good vet IMPs (FAKENATs) than IMP-calibre NATs.

The Ambrosie threat is proof Walter's take on this is correct.  Ambrosie wouldn't have to threaten anyone if the FAKENAT replacing an injured NAT in-game wasn't a real thing.

Smart teams should coach up their realNATs on getting really good at faking injuries.  I fully expect SSK to do this.  WRs could jump in the air real high and land on an arm or something as they whiff on a catch.  Writhe in pain a bit.  Voila, you get to put Arcenaux or Roosevelt or some other great player in place of a an ELC no-name STer realNAT!  It's even easier on D, just spear someone and act all groggy: you don't even need to pull the player, wait for the spotter to do it for you!  Just make sure you whirl around and stumble and walk into team mates.  Prove it's not a real injury, Ambrosie, even if they pull it every game...

We should get right on hiring a new positional coach: Chief Injury Faker Coach.


It's still hard to understand, and like I said I may be way off base. If the way you are describing it is true what is the point? Every team met this last year without trying did they not? In the GC as an example as someone pointed out I believe we had 5 or 6 guys that would qualify for the 3 "fakes". At any rate I guess we will see how it plays out as the season goes on.
Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4223


« Reply #322 on: February 05, 2020, 03:02:01 PM »

You must maintain 7 NATs in the starting lineup, injury or no injury, is what I understood.

When I read the CFLPA memo on this, it seemed to suggest that the 3 Designated Americans would be allowed to substitute for an injured Canadian starter.  While it wasn't detailed on the mechanics of how this would happen, it is consistent with what the GMs have been whining about in terms of not having enough good Canadians to replace injured starters.  That sentiment was reported several times in the run up to the final CBA.

I think it will happen through a "chain substitution", but this is speculative on my part.  So, to make up an example:  If our d-line starter is Jake Thomas and one of our designated Americans is Jeffcoat, and or American DI is McAlister.   Jake gets injured, and we have Jeffcoat "sub in" for him as a starter under this replacement provision.   McAlister can then come onto the field as a "sub" for Jeffcoat.  Alternatively, Craig Roh, as a 3 year vet, could be the sub instead of McAlister. 

Not 100% sure on this, but its the only way I can make sense of it. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8766



« Reply #323 on: February 05, 2020, 03:12:44 PM »

When I read the CFLPA memo on this, it seemed to suggest that the 3 Designated Americans would be allowed to substitute for an injured Canadian starter.  While it wasn't detailed on the mechanics of how this would happen, it is consistent with what the GMs have been whining about in terms of not having enough good Canadians to replace injured starters.  That sentiment was reported several times in the run up to the final CBA.

I think it will happen through a "chain substitution", but this is speculative on my part.  So, to make up an example:  If our d-line starter is Jake Thomas and one of our designated Americans is Jeffcoat, and or American DI is McAlister.   Jake gets injured, and we have Jeffcoat "sub in" for him as a starter under this replacement provision.   McAlister can then come onto the field as a "sub" for Jeffcoat.  Alternatively, Craig Roh, as a 3 year vet, could be the sub instead of McAlister. 

Not 100% sure on this, but its the only way I can make sense of it. 


This is also how I envision this working. More likely your other scenario (Roh subbing), though, since as I understand there is no limit to the number of designated vets you can have, as long as 3 are on the field (or 3 extra Nats)
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
GCn19
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25189


« Reply #324 on: February 05, 2020, 03:24:46 PM »

When I read the CFLPA memo on this, it seemed to suggest that the 3 Designated Americans would be allowed to substitute for an injured Canadian starter.  While it wasn't detailed on the mechanics of how this would happen, it is consistent with what the GMs have been whining about in terms of not having enough good Canadians to replace injured starters.  That sentiment was reported several times in the run up to the final CBA.

I think it will happen through a "chain substitution", but this is speculative on my part.  So, to make up an example:  If our d-line starter is Jake Thomas and one of our designated Americans is Jeffcoat, and or American DI is McAlister.   Jake gets injured, and we have Jeffcoat "sub in" for him as a starter under this replacement provision.   McAlister can then come onto the field as a "sub" for Jeffcoat.  Alternatively, Craig Roh, as a 3 year vet, could be the sub instead of McAlister. 

Not 100% sure on this, but its the only way I can make sense of it. 

Ok    well that makes it kinda murky water doesn't it. I can't imagine this provision lasting long once a couple NATs actually go down against the Riders and vet IMPs are used to replace them in game. There freaking heads will explode.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2020, 03:26:32 PM by GCn19 » Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
Blue96
Full Member
***
Posts: 134


« Reply #325 on: February 05, 2020, 03:52:57 PM »

Argos just picked up Tommie Campbell and Natey Adjei per Instagram.
Logged
Ridermania
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1285



« Reply #326 on: February 05, 2020, 04:01:31 PM »

#Regina native, punter Jon Ryan signs one-year contract extension with #Riders for the 2020 season
Logged
kkc60
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4650


« Reply #327 on: February 05, 2020, 04:04:15 PM »

Argos actually are building a nice secondary.
Logged
GCn19
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25189


« Reply #328 on: February 05, 2020, 04:05:10 PM »

Argos actually are building a nice secondary.

Can't possibly be any worse. lol
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
3rdand1.5
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3701


« Reply #329 on: February 05, 2020, 04:08:35 PM »

Argos just picked up Tommie Campbell and Natey Adjei per Instagram.

The Argos IMO are actually putting together a decent roster (save for possibly the o-line)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 33
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!