Roster Player Categories

[Blue In BC]

You would assume so, but it's wrong.  Look again at my Woli/Bailey/McCrae idea that we could have used:

A) 00 snaps  Woli Schoen Demski McCrae Agudosi    <--- listed as starters, minimize this
B) 23 snaps  Bailey Schoen Demski McCrae Agudosi  <--- maximize this
C) X-23 snaps  Woli Schoen Demski Bailey Agudosi   <--- minimize this

(too really see how you win replace Bailey with Lawler, and McCrae with Bailey, as we would do when Lawler is healthy)

Normally we wouldn't start McCrae at all and (C) would be our lineup.

If we used Bailey as DNA then what is the effect?  Bailey can interestingly still play 100% of the snaps.  The reps losers are Woli (down by 23) but the gainer is MCcrae (up by 23 snaps).

But because we must now put Bailey as a DA (nee DI) there is another, hidden, loser: the guy who would otherwise be that DA.  For us that's losing a DA on D.  That guy gets zero snaps.

So I think the real optimal methodology, when taken AR-wide, is to use DNAs and the new-starters for IMPs that can't/wouldn't play every down anyhow.  Because you still are wasting that roster spot on a doesn't-see-any-snaps "starter"!  The roster's simply not big enough to waste this spot as a cheap ELC placeholder for the "real starter", the DNA.

McCraw and Agudosi are still on ELC's so the Bombers roster at the moment that's an exception.

If as I suggested we'd add Lemon that would be above an ELC regardless if he was starting or the Nationalized American.

Players that are starters now, like Jefferson may not want a future reduced role in this new category, or the relevant pay cut.

[Blue In BC]

Lost in this whole process is the fact that, the 2 teams that utilize the DNA the least this season get a bonus draft pick at the end of the 2nd round next year. I think the Blue Bombers may place some value on that bonus draft pick.

In other words, the more snaps that your Nationals get, puts you in running for a bonus draft pick.

I forgot about that but it's a small advantage. I'd rather win the Grey Cup and end up with the 9th and 18th pick. Being awarded the 19th pick as a bonus may be inconsequential in the grand scheme.

That choice would probably be destined for the PR. Our 35 pick draft choice, Schmekel may have a future but he would have been on the PR is not for Lawson's injury.

[TecnoGenius]

If as I suggested we'd add Lemon that would be above an ELC regardless if he was starting or the Nationalized American.

Players that are starters now, like Jefferson may not want a future reduced role in this new category, or the relevant pay cut.

Yes Lemon would be above ELC, but methinks not by too much.  Maybe $110k tops?  The delay in his move may be due to us (or someone) dangling lower money than he wants and him waiting to see more.  A game of chicken.  I think Lemon will blink first because the alternative is couch and $0.

Besides, a vet IMP DT is really what we need to maximize the FAKENAT formula, not a DE.

As for "pay cut": Why does there have to be a difference in pay?  As long as they restructure a contract to not say anything about "starts" or "snaps" then what the player gets paid is what they'd normally get paid.  If Jeffcoat is the DNA, I don't see why he'd earn any less.

The "reduced role" aspect is moot if you pick a player that is a half-down (or less) player anyhow (Carey, Grant, maybe Jeffcoat, maybe Lemon).  Yes, there is the loss of "look at me, I'm the star starter", and that would have to be explained to the fans.  And the in-stadium introductions would need to take this into account!  If it helps the team win GCs, I'm sure stand-up players would accept the DNA designation.

[Blue In BC]

Yes Lemon would be above ELC, but methinks not by too much.  Maybe $110k tops?  The delay in his move may be due to us (or someone) dangling lower money than he wants and him waiting to see more.  A game of chicken.  I think Lemon will blink first because the alternative is couch and $0.

Besides, a vet IMP DT is really what we need to maximize the FAKENAT formula, not a DE.

As for "pay cut": Why does there have to be a difference in pay?  As long as they restructure a contract to not say anything about "starts" or "snaps" then what the player gets paid is what they'd normally get paid.  If Jeffcoat is the DNA, I don't see why he'd earn any less.

The "reduced role" aspect is moot if you pick a player that is a half-down (or less) player anyhow (Carey, Grant, maybe Jeffcoat, maybe Lemon).  Yes, there is the loss of "look at me, I'm the star starter", and that would have to be explained to the fans.  And the in-stadium introductions would need to take this into account!  If it helps the team win GCs, I'm sure stand-up players would accept the DNA designation.

Hard to say on all those points. Just saying that player can also sub for other imports as well as the Canadians. Or he might be limited in total reps across the board. Going from a starter to a DI version has many implications.

I used Lemon because he could be used in 3 man DE fronts which the Bombers often use. Haba might end up in that role but couldn't replace Thomas. Lemon could. Couldn't come up with a DT that is on the radar at the moment.  I don't know how much Lemon would get paid. The point is what is the small advantage of replacing a Canadian at times and keeping an aged veteran around worth? $35K more is nothing to sneeze at and potentially could cost another potential free agent. Too many variables to calculate all the pros and cons.

The extra draft pick for using the Designated American seems contradictory. At attempt to reduce reps for a Canadian on both sides of the ball versus getting another draft pick? lol

Haba could be a good player but he's been here such a short time we have such a small sample as fans. He'll be closely watched as well as Bennett tonight to see how they perform.

If our front 7 doesn't get pressure our secondary could suffer.

[TecnoGenius]

Yes, you are right on the implications and the costs of making full use of the rule.

However, from a bird's eye view it would in theory allow a D like ours, which starts 1 NAT, to be all-IMP (NAT-free) for 23 plays.  If we still started Hurl, putting in even an ELC MLB for 23 plays would be very attractive.  Or for a team hiding a weak NAT at FS.  But I think you need to start the planning for this in FA, not once the roster is pretty well set.  If the rule isn't ditched, perhaps we'll see more thought on getting the right mix of ELC IMP, VET IMP and NAT per side to make this work in your favor.

If the "feature" goes unused by teams, then perhaps this was a phony bone thrown to the CFLPA from the league.  It sounds like it does something to help ageing IMPs, but in reality it doesn't.  Still need to see what other teams do in the other 3 games this week...

[TecnoGenius]

I looked as carefully as I could in the BC@CGY game and I could see no hint that the DNA/DNS rule was being used by either team.  Carey subbed in for Logan as he usually would, and I never saw less NATs on field than normal.  I never saw any 2-back set nor Carey used in the slot.  However, the lack of all-12 or all-24 shots made knowing for sure mostly impossible.

Interestingly, TSN talking heads 100% ignored the new rule.  They didn't even mention the tweet or the confusion or anything.  Total silence.  This makes me think either the league/TSN are embarrassed about the debacle, or they've already gotten word it's being scrapped soon.

If they were to discuss it, they'd really bore the "new" USA audience to tears, as would any talk about the ratio at all.  They might want to save such things for when it's a non-USA-televised (streaming-only) game.

There is also still the fact that the depth charts were not in compliance (listing DNA only on one side, etc).

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I looked as carefully as I could in the BC@CGY game and I could see no hint that the DNA/DNS rule was being used by either team.  Carey subbed in for Logan as he usually would, and I never saw less NATs on field than normal.  I never saw any 2-back set nor Carey used in the slot.  However, the lack of all-12 or all-24 shots made knowing for sure mostly impossible.

Interestingly, TSN talking heads 100% ignored the new rule.  They didn't even mention the tweet or the confusion or anything.  Total silence.  This makes me think either the league/TSN are embarrassed about the debacle, or they've already gotten word it's being scrapped soon.

If they were to discuss it, they'd really bore the "new" USA audience to tears, as would any talk about the ratio at all.  They might want to save such things for when it's a non-USA-televised (streaming-only) game.

There is also still the fact that the depth charts were not in compliance (listing DNA only on one side, etc).

TSN rarely talks about the ratio, DI's or anything else technical, most viewers probably don't know and don't care to know.  As for the Fake Nat. rule, they either correct it very quickly or leave it as it is until the off-season. It won't be that noticeable to the viewer watching a game, but it will make a huge difference to Natl. players that are shunted aside so American players can take more snaps.

[TecnoGenius]

Hold that thought... I'm watching the Jun 7 "2023 CFL Season Preview" I recorded but didn't have time to watch until now.  29 minutes in they have Naylor on with Kate and they briefly talk about the new FAKENAT rules.  It was almost like Naylor was apologizing to fans and trying not to cringe.  Kate didn't seem to understand any of it (don't blame her).

They didn't explain it well, nor its implications.

But at least TSN mentioned it.  Maybe some future pre-game shows will get more details.

[pdirks67]

Hold that thought... I'm watching the Jun 7 "2023 CFL Season Preview" I recorded but didn't have time to watch until now.  29 minutes in they have Naylor on with Kate and they briefly talk about the new FAKENAT rules.  It was almost like Naylor was apologizing to fans and trying not to cringe.  Kate didn't seem to understand any of it (don't blame her).

They didn't explain it well, nor its implications.

But at least TSN mentioned it.  Maybe some future pre-game shows will get more details.

I can't imagine any casual fan being able to follow the intracacies of the rule. Or caring enough to get so deep in weeds.

[TecnoGenius]

OTT DNA/DNS breakdown:

Looks like they did it "right" on the depth chart.  Good for them.  (But they did have an extra day to fix it up to fit the tweet.)

O side is just like us: has Dedmon (returner) as DNA.  He could come in for NAT Behar to give them an all-IMP WR corps for some snaps.

D side is similar to what we've seen: DT Wakefield is the DNA... but... they don't have a backup IMP DT to put in if Wakefield goes in for NAT Laing.  They are putting GLOB DT Ta'ala (??) as the starter in Wakefield's place, but Wakefield will see almost all those snaps.  This proves that teams are seeing that you need to "fake start" an ELC IMP or GLOB so your real player can be the backup DA/DI and thus DNA.

I can't see Ta'ala being "better" than Laing, so except for "free spelling" (Wakefield in for Laing with Ta'ala still on), this buys them nothing.  None of the other possible subs make sense either, so OTT will probably not use FAKENAT on D in a strategic sense.

Looks like it's going to be very hard for teams to come up with the winning formula on D.

[TecnoGenius]

MTL DNA/DNS breakdown:

D: MTL (against rule 1) is not specifying any DNA/DNS on D.

O: They're doing what we're doing (that's 3 teams now): just making their normal returner the DNA and some NAT receivers the DNS/DNSBs.

So really nothing to talk about vis a vis MTL.  Except maybe that a lot of teams are opting to use this on O for their returner, yet the returners aren't coming in the game much (and when they are, is the DNS coming out?  I'm trying to determine this).  My point being that doing this in no way will help "ageing vet IMPs" when GMs make roster choices.

Well, I guess it will help ageing vet IMP returners.  If you have a choice between a 2 year returner and a 5 year, you might go with the 5 year, even if the 2-year is better.  Not necessarily because you'll field them in place of a NAT, but because you are forced (by rule, but no one seems to be following it) to declare a DNA on O, meaning you need at least 1 non-starting vet IMP as DA and DNA.  Not everyone dresses an extra IMP on O (we don't!).

[TecnoGenius]

Another intriguing idea might be if/when Stan or Yosh (I just realized that's the names of the Shmenges, hilarious) reach retirement due to body breakdown, but maybe could play half a game.  We'd have Neuf or a new IMP start at OT, and instead of dressing an extra NAT OL, make Stan/Yosh a DA and the DNA.  They could then come on to spell any OL (NAT or IMP) for 23 plays, or act as injury backup.  However, this makes us give up one DA on D.  But it could prolong a Stan/Yosh career, and finally for once have the FAKENAT stuff actually do what it was intended.

[theaardvark]

Another intriguing idea might be if/when Stan or Yosh (I just realized that's the names of the Shmenges, hilarious) reach retirement due to body breakdown, but maybe could play half a game.  We'd have Neuf or a new IMP start at OT, and instead of dressing an extra NAT OL, make Stan/Yosh a DA and the DNA.  They could then come on to spell any OL (NAT or IMP) for 23 plays, or act as injury backup.  However, this makes us give up one DA on D.  But it could prolong a Stan/Yosh career, and finally for once have the FAKENAT stuff actually do what it was intended.

If an OT is physically incapable of playing a whole game, he needs to retire.  Oline operates as a well oiled machine, and any variance upsets that.  So, no to part time vet OT.

DE is different, and DT, because Dline operates on chaos.  Any disruption they can bring, in alignment, personnel or scheme is good.  So, more like Jeffcoat if we had Kongbo or an elite NAT DT.

Draft Pick for teams that use the least snaos?  Has anyone used one fake nat snap yet?  Might the entire league tie for the lead?

[TecnoGenius]

Draft Pick for teams that use the least snaos?  Has anyone used one fake nat snap yet?  Might the entire league tie for the lead?

I'm really trying to see.  I haven't spotted DNA-coming-in-for-DNS being used yet, but it might be hard to spot given limited TSN angles.  On D it'll be even harder to see, with so many common subs!!

We had Grant in a couple of times and I'm doing my re-watch and looking to see the personnel when he was in.  We did a lot of subs later in the game, and had Jackson on the field quite a bit!!

You could be right, at least for week 1, in that zero teams use this, or only use it a couple of times.  My money is on C.Jones using it the most, as he hates the ratio.  We shall see on Sunday.