3 Peat ? Who retires ?

[Blue In BC]

The current roster page string shows he was going to earn $165K. That's not Lawler money and he was having a great season until injury. I still like the idea of a lower base contract with  more incentives for games played and results.

[Pigskin]

The current roster page string shows he was going to earn $165K. That's not Lawler money and he was having a great season until injury. I still like the idea of a lower base contract with  more incentives for games played and results.

If we can get him back for the playoffs it will be a nice bonus for our O.

[Blue In BC]

If we can get him back for the playoffs it will be a nice bonus for our O.

Yeah I'm hoping he starts practice this next week and possibly even gets activated and eased into playing. He's an obvious upgrade to McCrae as a receiver. McCrae could likely continue as a DI but putting him into a game then becomes a ratio issue which doesn't exist now.

I liked that dynamic of him being used a few times in sweeps or RB role.

[theaardvark]

Funny, Ellingson was kind of the Darvin Adams replacement (well, or maybe Lawler), because the team thought Adams was getting too old, too much tub time, too expensive, losing his hands, etc.  In the end Darvin has played every OTT game, and I'm sure is making less than Ellingson.  And Darvin is having a very good year, too.  Not as talented as Ellingson, but certainly talented enough to beat out McCrae or Boo.

Come playoff time, who would you rather have: an Ellingson in the tub or a Darvin on the field?  I never did like letting Darvin go.  Dude would have signed here for peanuts.  Ellingson is going to have to get out of the tub and play some darn good ball in the post-season to change my mind.

The funny thing is, we might one day see Darvin back in B&G if our IMP WR depth doesn't improve.

P.S. Darvin is 178Y away from 1000 on the season and has 2 games to go.  Ellingson is at 572.  Darvin's best year since '18.

Darvin went from #3 or #4 on the check down to #1 or #2... Ellingson went from #1 or #2 to start the year to #3 or #4 as the year progressed...  targets is everything when trying to amass catches and yards.  If you ain't getting targeted, you ain't getting stats.

As to avoiding the tub, Darvin has done a good job of that.  After playing 13 and 11 games in the last two seasons for us, he has been healthy this year.  Ellingson has been relatively healthy until last year and this year...

In my view, Ellingson was a "replacement" for Lawler/Adams both.  If he didn't take Lawlers place, he could slot into Adams'

[Blue In BC]

Darvin went from #3 or #4 on the check down to #1 or #2... Ellingson went from #1 or #2 to start the year to #3 or #4 as the year progressed...  targets is everything when trying to amass catches and yards.  If you ain't getting targeted, you ain't getting stats.

As to avoiding the tub, Darvin has done a good job of that.  After playing 13 and 11 games in the last two seasons for us, he has been healthy this year.  Ellingson has been relatively healthy until last year and this year...

In my view, Ellingson was a "replacement" for Lawler/Adams both.  If he didn't take Lawlers place, he could slot into Adams'

Not close to correct. Ellingson played 6 games and then missed 3. He returned and played one more game before re-injury.

In games 5 & 6 he caught 18 of 21 attempts for 98 and 152 yards. He was on fire and hardly the # 3 or # 4 target.

[theaardvark]

Not close to correct. Ellingson played 6 games and then missed 3. He returned and played one more game before re-injury.

In games 5 & 6 he caught 18 of 21 attempts for 98 and 152 yards. He was on fire and hardly the # 3 or # 4 target.

Targets each game: 7, 7, 4, 3, 7, 14 (injured), 5 (injured)

He had one game "on fire".  The game he got injured in.  Games 3 and 4, not so much... so he was getting hotter, after dropping down...

Regardless, he's a quality player, a good team mate and an asset to the team.  I have no issues with him signing here again.

[Blue In BC]

Targets each game: 7, 7, 4, 3, 7, 14 (injured), 5 (injured)

He had one game "on fire".  The game he got injured in.  Games 3 and 4, not so much... so he was getting hotter, after dropping down...

Regardless, he's a quality player, a good team mate and an asset to the team.  I have no issues with him signing here again.

You're still wrong.  Compare the yardage Schoen had in those games. There is no way in the world you could have believed Ellingson was a 3rd or 4th target. Schoen had 24 reception in 7 games and Ellingson had 37.

Yardage: 74, 71, 73, 50, 98, 162 in the 1st 6 games. Collaros threw for less than 230 yards in 4 of those first 5 games.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Targets each game: 7, 7, 4, 3, 7, 14 (injured), 5 (injured)

He had one game "on fire".  The game he got injured in.  Games 3 and 4, not so much... so he was getting hotter, after dropping down...

Regardless, he's a quality player, a good team mate and an asset to the team.  I have no issues with him signing here again.

Good buddy with Collaros as well, I think that will sway his decision to stay for another year.

[ichabod_crane]

Did Lawler just sign for one year? He maybe could come back in free agency if he scales back his asking price.

[Blue In BC]

Did Lawler just sign for one year? He maybe could come back in free agency if he scales back his asking price.

I think he did only sign for 1 year. We're jumping the gun though to think he may be returning. While I wouldn't rule it out it's too early to even know what our needs will be. Schoen and Ellington could both be back or both could be gone.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I think he did only sign for 1 year. We're jumping the gun though to think he may be returning. While I wouldn't rule it out it's too early to even know what our needs will be. Schoen and Ellington could both be back or both could be gone.

Lawler will be going to F.A., he may scale his price down from $300k, but by how much?  I still think anything over $200k for an import receiver is too much and unnecessary, I'd wave $200k at Demski before I thought about Lawler, he's more critical to the Bomber offence.

[Blue In BC]

Lawler will be going to F.A., he may scale his price down from $300k, but by how much?  I still think anything over $200k for an import receiver is too much and unnecessary, I'd wave $200k at Demski before I thought about Lawler, he's more critical to the Bomber offence.

Agree. Getting Lawler back might be nice if we lose some receivers. Demski is  more valuable. He's a top player and being a Canadian hometown player is just an added bonus.

[ichabod_crane]

I think he did only sign for 1 year. We're jumping the gun though to think he may be returning. While I wouldn't rule it out it's too early to even know what our needs will be. Schoen and Ellington could both be back or both could be gone.

I was more speculating kicking his tires if bombers lose some receivers be it nfl, retirements or other.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Agree. Getting Lawler back might be nice if we lose some receivers. Demski is  more valuable. He's a top player and being a Canadian hometown player is just an added bonus.

Not one receiver in the league better than Demski at catching those over the shoulder homerun passes Zach loves to throw.

I'd rather they give Agudosi his big shot instead of  paying Lawler a premium to return.  I prefer the group format when every receiver is a threat, instead of relying on the #1 receiver to carry more of the load, spreading the ball out is harder to defend.

[theaardvark]

Did Lawler just sign for one year? He maybe could come back in free agency if he scales back his asking price.

Why would he scale back his price?  And why would we invest that much in a receiver, any receiver, that is going to touch the ball 10% of the plays in a game, max. 

Rec's, IMHO, are one of the most overspent on groups.  Yes, they make big plays, and you need one or two that can.  But we seem to find guys who can do that, and do it on ELC's until someone else pays up for them.

Sure, I'd love Lawler back, but someone else will value him far more than we will.  That's a fact.