Roster Player Categories

[Blue In BC]

I hate this rule, but the Bailey example isn't a good one.

Using this rule, you could match a guy like McRae with an H-back/fullback like Burtenshaw to fill the 7th Canadian starter.  You put McRae in for plays where he might get targets, you use Burtenshaw for protection assignments.  That eliminates the need for a player like Wolitarsky, who is harder to find and costs more.

You could also do something similar with Cameron Lawson and an experienced American DT.  That would allow you to retire Jake Thomas and a veteran salary.

Burtenshaw went to the 6 game IR earlier. I'm not honestly sure how many times he's actually on the field on offence.

A veteran import DT might cost nearly as much as Jake Thomas so that's a challenge.

Lemon came up as an example a few times. He could play at DE and / or in 3 DE sets we've often used. But I would have thought we'd do that when Jake T came off for that play or series. Considering he's the only primarily Canadian starter on defence and the point of the Nationalized American.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

So - a minor benefit to clubs. And really no benefit to players in terms of more snaps or whatever.

This seems to be a complicated solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I agree, I'm going to lay this rule change at the feet of Solomon Elimimian the current president of the CFLPA as his pet project, trying to extend the careers of American vets. playing past their expiry dates.  Those are the players he's most familiar with from his time in the league and I'm sure they still have his ear.  The silver lining is the Bombers may be able to get 2-3 extra years of service out of Willie J. once he is past his prime.

[the paw]

I agree, I'm going to lay this rule change at the feet of Solomon Elimimian the current president of the CFLPA as his pet project, trying to extend the careers of American vets. playing past their expiry dates.  Those are the players he's most familiar with from his time in the league and I'm sure they still have his ear.  The silver lining is the Bombers may be able to get 2-3 extra years of service out of Willie J. once he is past his prime.

I actually think it is a legit aim to give more job security to veteran imports.  Personally, I would have just made a stipulation that 2 of a teams DIs have to be veterans.  That would have accomplished the same thing, but not diminished National starting reps.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I actually think it is a legit aim to give more job security to veteran imports.  Personally, I would have just made a stipulation that 2 of a teams DIs have to be veterans.  That would have accomplished the same thing, but not diminished National starting reps.

It was the league that was the main driver of this initiative and they said at the time that the goal is to ensure the best players get on the field more often.

[Blue In BC]

I actually think it is a legit aim to give more job security to veteran imports.  Personally, I would have just made a stipulation that 2 of a teams DIs have to be veterans.  That would have accomplished the same thing, but not diminished National starting reps.

That sort of works as far as prolonging the careers of imports. OTOH if they are able to play for a Canadian it's still taking away National starting reps any way you look at it.

I don't think anyone would be opposed to prolonging careers of veteran imports but DI's are often rookies on ELC's. That can't be discounted and that is a double edged sword.

Job security should be based on performance / productivity. Add in cost effectiveness against the SMS into the mix.

Willie Jefferson as a Nationalized American in 2024 or 2025 for $130K ( arbitrary amount ) as opposed to a rookie on an ELC? Maybe. Maybe not.

Grant would quality. In theory if he could play DB, he could go in to replace Thomas if we went to a 3 man DL for a play or series.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

That sort of works as far as prolonging the careers of imports. OTOH if they are able to play for a Canadian it's still taking away National starting reps any way you look at it.

I don't think anyone would be opposed to prolonging careers of veteran imports but DI's are often rookies on ELC's. That can't be discounted and that is a double edged sword.

Job security should be based on performance / productivity. Add in cost effectiveness against the SMS into the mix.

Willie Jefferson as a Nationalized American in 2024 or 2025 for $130K ( arbitrary amount ) as opposed to a rookie on an ELC? Maybe. Maybe not.

Grant would quality. In theory if he could play DB, he could go in to replace Thomas if we went to a 3 man DL for a play or series.

What???

[Blue In BC]

What???

That's not hard to understand. When we go to a 6 man DB set on passing downs, we pull a DL. Grant is not exactly someone that has been used as a DB and we may not have a DB as a DI.

Grant has exceptional speed. So based on the Nationalized American, in theory he could go in as a DB.

Let's say it's hail mary time for the opponent and you want someone deep that can travel quickly to a pass in the air.

I'm not saying it would happen often or even ever. I'm just saying that technically he fits the bill as an option.

[TecnoGenius]

Grant would quality. In theory if he could play DB, he could go in to replace Thomas if we went to a 3 man DL for a play or series.

Ya, BinBC I love you but you're hung up on the "side of the ball" issue with FAKENATs.  Forget the D.  If Grant has enough years to meet the FAKENAT requirements (does he??) then he can sub in for Woli or Demski or Brady (or even Stan/Yosh) for up to 49% of the O snaps!

And he could do that right now with zero changes to anything: designation changes, roster changes, whatever.  Nothing has to change and Grant can come in for any NAT for 49% of the snaps!!  Forget the D!!

(Sure technically you could sub Grant in for JT on D for a snap, I guess, but why are we even talking about absurdities when we have great concrete examples of how the rule might actually be used in reality?)

[TecnoGenius]

It seems to me like he stands to lose snaps, not gain snaps if he's a possible candidate as a 49%er?

I'd be surprised if the Canadian Mafia aren't thinking very carefully about this already. All three of them are grandmasters in CFL rules, and I expect them to be up there in maximizing the hazy benefits of this rule.

Yes, Bailey stands to lose snaps per game, but would likely be kept around for more seasons as his performance drops off because he could sub in for an even worse WR (say Woli if he drops off).  Right now IMPs have to be way better than NATs to beat them off the roster (see Demski).  With the FAKENAT rule the IMP only has to be a bit better than the NAT.  Then it makes sense to start the NAT and 49% sub in the bit better FAKENAT IMP.

I said the Mafia isn't thinking about it because KW came out in a presser on video you can probably still find (January?) and said it's not even a consideration and he doesn't expect to make use of it from a strategic standpoint.  But if in-season injuries or performance changes present a 49% opportunity, I'm sure he'll use it.  Or he's just lying, which is always possible with The Mafia (to trick other teams into complacency).

[TecnoGenius]

Using this rule, you could match a guy like McRae with an H-back/fullback like Burtenshaw to fill the 7th Canadian starter.  You put McRae in for plays where he might get targets, you use Burtenshaw for protection assignments.  That eliminates the need for a player like Wolitarsky, who is harder to find and costs more.

You could also do something similar with Cameron Lawson and an experienced American DT.  That would allow you to retire Jake Thomas and a veteran salary.

First your Lawson / vet IMP DT is the perfect example I've been looking for.  Heck, you could even apply it to JT himself if he's still performing.  But the trick is who do you pick up as the vet IMP DT??

McCrae doesn't count as FAKENAT because he doesn't have enough years, I'm pretty sure. (Anyone know the # of years you need?? And do you need to be starting or just dressing or even PRing?)

[Blue In BC]

Ya, BinBC I love you but you're hung up on the "side of the ball" issue with FAKENATs.  Forget the D.  If Grant has enough years to meet the FAKENAT requirements (does he??) then he can sub in for Woli or Demski or Brady (or even Stan/Yosh) for up to 49% of the O snaps!

And he could do that right now with zero changes to anything: designation changes, roster changes, whatever.  Nothing has to change and Grant can come in for any NAT for 49% of the snaps!!  Forget the D!!

(Sure technically you could sub Grant in for JT on D for a snap, I guess, but why are we even talking about absurdities when we have great concrete examples of how the rule might actually be used in reality?)

No I'm not. I already suggested he could also go in on offence including a scenario where an import OL was out for a series. He does quality under the rules and could go in on either side of the ball.

As we know his reps on offence will still be limited and the chance of him seeing reps on defence would fall into my hail mary scenario at best.

None of that changes the fact that in my examples an import on that side of the ball would be coming out. That's the previous DI rule. The new rule has not been totally clarified.

[TecnoGenius]

This seems to be a complicated solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Join the club!!  I think nearly every fan has been saying that since the idea was proposed in various forms 3-4 years ago.  First it was supposed to be injury replacement only.  Now it's this 49% free for all.

It's a dumb rule, will be very hard to police, especially in-game (watch for lots of people going over 49%).

What it allows a very wily GM/HC to do if they want to is build a team with 3 or 4 NAT OL and have the rest of the team be 100% IMP for 49% of the snaps.  (Yes, hard to achieve, and wouldn't all be on the same snaps probably, and would have to use 3-4 DIs just for this purpose, so probably need NAT P/K and returner.)

Let's say a team has let their NAT corps rot, not uncommon in the CFL, and instead of the multi-year draft / trade rebuild of their NATs they can now basically field a CFL X-era all-American team for half the game!!  It devalues all the years of hard work and goodwill building up a great NAT corps like KW/WPG has!

Let's say you're Chris Jones who always hated "weak" NATs.  Build your team just right and starting half way through the 3rd quarter you could sit your entire non-OL NAT corps and start nothing but Americans for the final 1.5 quarters.  How much of an advantage is that??

It lets you have way more Hurls on your team you pay ELC just so you can coast to the 3rd quarter to field your "real" team.  No need to pay huge-$$ Demskis or even mid-range Wolis.  I think it's the mid-range starter NATs that lose out the worst on this.  Like Fatboi.

[TecnoGenius]

None of that changes the fact that in my examples an import on that side of the ball would be coming out. That's the previous DI rule. The new rule has not been totally clarified.

I think that's the big stumbling block in this discussion between us and BinBC.  So let's make sure we're clear.  When you say "coming out" do you mean coming out, coming off the field for that play?  (Not "coming out" as in not being on the AR for that whole game.)

If the former, you are 100% wrong and that is where you are probably getting confused.  The whole FAKENAT idea is that the FAKENAT (here Grant) can sub in FOR A NAT.  No IMP needs to come out ON THAT PLAY.

That's why I call them "FAKENAT".  They get to play just like a NAT, even though they are not (i.e. FAKE).  Well, for 49% of the snaps on that side, anyhow.

Yes, the rules don't seem to be written in stone, but everything that has been provided to us so far and every discussion everyone has had revolves around the fact the FAKENAT subs in for anybody, not just IMPs.  Otherwise, what is the point of it and the 49%?  None of these conversations would make any sense.

[theaardvark]

That's not hard to understand. When we go to a 6 man DB set on passing downs, we pull a DL. Grant is not exactly someone that has been used as a DB and we may not have a DB as a DI.

Grant has exceptional speed. So based on the Nationalized American, in theory he could go in as a DB.

Let's say it's hail mary time for the opponent and you want someone deep that can travel quickly to a pass in the air.

I'm not saying it would happen often or even ever. I'm just saying that technically he fits the bill as an option.

I guess he was questioning whether putting in a DI returner "fake Nat" into a 6 DB set to take advantage of sitting Thomas is actually better than putting in a real Nat backup DB...

[TecnoGenius]

I agree, I'm going to lay this rule change at the feet of Solomon Elimimian the current president of the CFLPA as his pet project, trying to extend the careers of American vets. playing past their expiry dates.  Those are the players he's most familiar with from his time in the league and I'm sure they still have his ear.  The silver lining is the Bombers may be able to get 2-3 extra years of service out of Willie J. once he is past his prime.

This is 100% correct.  This up-values and keeps alive ageing vet IMPs.

Who loses?

1. All the young ELC IMPs who cannot crack rosters as DIs; they will have to basically be hot starter material from day 1 to make the AR!

2. I'm guessing also mid-level NATs who will be shunned for new ELC DPs.  Superstar NATs should still be ok.  All NATs below superstar quality could see downward pressure on their value.

And now we know why they are doing FAKENAT: no one cares about the ELC IMPs.  No one ever has.  They are considered a dime a dozen and expendable.  The CFLPA doesn't care about them, as by definition its members are guys who have already "made it" in the CFL.

As for your last point on Willie: yes, but I'd expect this to help Jeffcoat long before it helps Willie.  That is why a NAT DE like Kongbo would have been useful -- 51% Kongbo, 49% Jeffcoat snaps.  Maybe we take a crack at him next year.