2023 Free Agency Transactions - Blue Bombers

Started by ModAdmin, February 13, 2023, 05:14:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


Quote from: the paw on March 12, 2023, 05:30:50 PM
I think the "legal tampering" window has made actual free agency much more efficient.  Teams go into free agency basically known which big free agents are leaving and which top ones they have attracted.  Then the dominoes fall pretty quickly as teams move to various positional Plan B's.   A few hard cases hold out to see if they can get their number, but by then the market has re-set and it's time for a chat with Mr. Reality.  I don't blame veterans who set a number and won't play for less, I think everyone has their own sense of what makes it worthwhile.  Nothing wrong with walking away when you feel the time is right.

I agree completely. If something isn't worth the time and health investment in your mind then walking away is not a bad option. A few years ago, I did the same with one of my small businesses. Profitable, and efficient it just didn't generate the money I felt I needed to make in order to justify the time investment. I handed it over to a young man I was employing and he got his start in business and I walked away. Sometimes, you have to place a value on time and quality of life over money and I absolutely don't blame any football player who puts a minimum price tag on that.
Some people take this forum way too seriously.


Quote from: TecnoGenius on March 13, 2023, 05:48:42 AM
I can't remember what year it was (probably 4-5 ago) that (I think) DT (who was on TSN doing those animations) ran the numbers and said the numbers proved teams should always go for 2.  Around the same time CGY and HAM started going for 2 a whack ton.  The insiders may have talked about it as well, and the booth guys.

It was kind of the buzz for a couple of weeks that year.

If "CFL wide" (i.e. all averages) show going for 2 can make sense, then imagine how those numbers calc out when your kicker misses PATs like I miss the bullseye at darts.  Add in the fact that your O is one of the best in the CFL (especially in red zone) and... should be a no-brainer for our team!!

And CGY was doing it with rarely-misses-PAT Parades!!

Going for 2 is a risk/reward scenario that statistically has seemed worth doing.  The key concern that I can see is, missing a convert, whether a 1 or 2 point try, means changing the dynamic of the score.  By pacing along at 7 pet TD, you keep the score need to catch up more consistent. 

That said, until the 4th quarter, it should be 100% about scoring the absolute most points possible, and if you hit on 50% of 2 pt conversions, that is equal to the best you can do kicking.  If you can squeak that to 60%, you are in plus territory, and if it falls to 40%, that's equal to 80% PAT conversion.

But I can see that taking away a PAT responsibility from a K might go against MOS's philosophy.  Kinda undercuts your confidence.  Unless they have a 2pt conversion specialist group on the team that converts well over 50% and he can tell his K that it is in the teams best interest to go for the most points on average, sticking with the slightly less productive overall, but more consistently productive single, whilst getting your K more live game reps to keep his foot in the game makes sense.
Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.


Quote from: theaardvark on March 13, 2023, 02:32:45 PM
But I can see that taking away a PAT responsibility from a K might go against MOS's philosophy.  Kinda undercuts your confidence.

We've seen MOS's philosophy change over the years as the reality of his roster changed.

When Meddy was here, his philosophy was just get within 50 yards so we could go for the 7 to 57 yard FG attempt.  Because Money would get us those 3 most of the time.  Clearly that is no longer the philosophy since Meddy left.

Our K is worse, and our O is better than the years we had Meddy.  Either Leggs starts kicking 99% of PAT, or we must examine the option of being a goes-for-2 team.

The only downside I can see to 2PAT is you give away a lot of your redzone playbook to get 2 vs saving them to get 6.  So you need a massive redzone playbook so teams can't just defend your 3-5 go-to plays.

Because I have faith Leggs will improve, I'm not saying we should do this.  I'm just saying that all you Leggs-bashers touting his crap PAT % then need to realize that a 2PAT philosophy might make sense.  I wouldn't be upset if in week 1 we see this change.  And more 3rd down gambling on the good side of C.
Never go full Rider!