Roster Player Categories

[TecnoGenius]

On a given play Grant goes in to replace Woli as a receiver. Or he goes in for a 6 receiver set with Oliveria coming out.

Where is the conflict coming from the CFL in not knowing how to implement that change? I gave the argument or question about the goal. Is it to extend the aging imports or to reduce net playing time for Canadians as well.

Well, now we know.  You don't just designate the FAKENAT, you also identify the DESIGNATED NATIONAL STARTER (DNS? not good for us computer people).  I would call that NAT the DESIGNATED NATIONAL LOSER (DNL) because the clarified rule mandates that instead of the "NAT losing snaps" being potentially spread across many different NATs (say both Woli and Demski and Brady), you now are laying all those snap losses on a single DNL.  Let's call him the LOSERNAT -- not because he's a loser or bad player, but because he'll be the only one (on his side of the ball) losing snap counts.  Up to 100% reduction if his team only gets 23 snaps on that side.

In my example, going in for a Canadian while taking out an import solves goal # 1 extending aging imports. It doesn't change goal # 2 if that is in fact part of the goal to reduce net reps for Canadians.

I don't think anyone would ever state it as a goal being to reduce NAT reps.  Instead they would word it as increasing IMP reps.  Someone said "better product on the field more often" (paraphrasing).  We all know what this means vis a vis the ratio.  It's not the intent, but it's the guaranteed side effect.

I haven't heard anything about globals being considered or not considered but why not? At some point they might become 3+ year players like Hansen.

Because the CFL rules are like the tax code: they don't make sense and it's pointless to try to apply logic.  It's a mishmash of random badly-worded ambiguous sentences thrown together year after year.  I've spent enough time in that rulebook to realize it's mostly garbage.  The rules end up being whatever the refs/league (and even TSN/fans) all agree on: like "surviving contact with the ground" or the "OOB player turns a good kick into an illegal kick off".

Another smaller point or two. We generally know who are DI's are and they announce them to the refs to keep track. Can't that show that on the depth chart and / or if we designate Nationalized Americans.

There's one good thing about this new rule: they say you must specify these new designations on the depth chart.  This is a great thing.  They didn't even do that before for DI's (though you could infer if you understood the roster rules).  Hopefully they'll start labelling all DIs explicitly too.  Man, the charts are going to get complicated!

Maybe it has to do with your comment about stacking the odds. For example: a team has 4 DI's and they can all play 49% of the plays replacing a Canadian. That effectively eliminates an accumulation of 2 starting Canadians.

Yes, we'll explore that more over the next few days I'm sure.

EDIT: One last point or thought. If the Nationalized Americans are taking significant reps away from Canadians, then who is helping keeping the imports fresh?  The ratio and back ups would then fall on more Canadians elsewhere having to fill in more often for imports. That's a net zero gain.

Well, on O we (as in WPG) don't really keep anyone fresh.  It's mostly all starters all the time except on trick schemes.  So this thought really only applies to the D.  (Other teams will find a way to apply it to their O, though.)  It's a good question.  But let's say we have a DNA (FAKENAT) DT; pretend his name is Nevis.  Make Fatboi the DNS.  Pretend the D sees 50 snaps.  So Nevis can play for Faboit for 23 snaps, but that still leaves another 10-15 or so he could spell Walker, which he might normally do anyhow.  If the starter (Walker) can normally do 50-15=35 snaps well, then certainly Nevis can do 23+12=35 snaps well.  No need to give any less-than NATs more snaps because Nevis can't do his normal spelling.

I see what you're saying, but I think the DNS can handle the normal spelling + 23 snaps.

[TecnoGenius]

Could we use the FAKENAT on Walker? We can start Caleb Thomas

I think the instant winner here for our team is Grant on O.  I would make Brady the DNS and Grant the DNA on O.

Walker doesn't qualify as he only has 2 years.

I'm not sure we have a clear winner (who gets the DNA) on our D.  This works best for a very good vet IMP who normally doesn't see the field for more than 50% of the snaps anyhow, whether due to needing to be fresh, or fragility, etc.  Carey in CGY is/was the perfect example.  He was never on the field for more than half the snaps anyhow!!

We could possibly use it for a perennially-ailing Jeffcoat.  If we like to keep him fresh and normally get him only about 23 snaps anyhow, he could be a candidate for DNA.  But we don't have a competent-to-start NAT at DE, so we'd have to figure out a rotation with Fatboi as DNS.  That gets complicated and might not buy us anything in the end.

It would be easier if we had a starting marginal NAT DB or WILL who could be the DNS.  Man, my brain is hurting trying to figure out how to maximize talent-on-field when the DNS/DNA aren't the same position!  Someone else come up with a good example.

[3rdand1.5]

I think the instant winner here for our team is Grant on O.  I would make Brady the DNS and Grant the DNA on O.

Walker doesn't qualify as he only has 2 years.

I'm not sure we have a clear winner (who gets the DNA) on our D.  This works best for a very good vet IMP who normally doesn't see the field for more than 50% of the snaps anyhow, whether due to needing to be fresh, or fragility, etc.  Carey in CGY is/was the perfect example.  He was never on the field for more than half the snaps anyhow!!

We could possibly use it for a perennially-ailing Jeffcoat.  If we like to keep him fresh and normally get him only about 23 snaps anyhow, he could be a candidate for DNA.  But we don't have a competent-to-start NAT at DE, so we'd have to figure out a rotation with Fatboi as DNS.  That gets complicated and might not buy us anything in the end.

It would be easier if we had a starting marginal NAT DB or WILL who could be the DNS.  Man, my brain is hurting trying to figure out how to maximize talent-on-field when the DNS/DNA aren't the same position!  Someone else come up with a good example.

Perhaps... If we start the season with a CDN at one LB spot, once Wilson is healthy you could designate say Wilson  and ease him in with up to 23 snaps and not have to make a roster adjustment to have him play, so you could have 3 imp. Lb's all 5 db's imps. and both Jeff's with say Walker on the D-line with only one of Jake or Cam as the only CDN on the defence. for up to 23 snaps a game....

[Blue In BC]

Yikes. The rule gets more crazy by the minute.

I guess Grant will be the Nationalized American player on offence. Woli will be the Nationalized Canadian. However I seriously doubt Grant gets anywhere near 23 plays on offence. No idea who gets picked on defence

[theaardvark]

Why not just start 8 nats?  Like we did a lot of last year...

[TecnoGenius]

Perhaps... If we start the season with a CDN at one LB spot, once Wilson is healthy you could designate say Wilson  and ease him in with up to 23 snaps and not have to make a roster adjustment to have him play, so you could have 3 imp.

Yes, this is maybe an unexpected side effect of the rule.  It won't just be for the clinging-on otherwise-starting oldsters like Ellingson or D.Adams, it will be great for injury-returnees.  It might even encourage bringing back guys a week earlier than we otherwise would: "In my current state I can play maybe half a game coach".

Also guys that are always on the cusp of going to the IR, like Jeffcoat.  "I probably should go to the IR coach, but I'm still well enough to play 23 snaps."

In fact, for the way our team is built, that might be the optimal use of the DNA rule on our D.

[TecnoGenius]

Yikes. The rule gets more crazy by the minute.

I guess Grant will be the Nationalized American player on offence. Woli will be the Nationalized Canadian. However I seriously doubt Grant gets anywhere near 23 plays on offence. No idea who gets picked on defence

I'm not sure it's a Woli slam-dunk.  I would look hard at making Brady the DNS.  We sometimes go empty backfield.  About the same amount (or more) than we do Grant-in-O schemes anyhow.  Any empty backfield play would look better with Grant in instead of Brady.

Normal games Woli is in every single snap.

[TecnoGenius]

Why not just start 8 nats?  Like we did a lot of last year...

Because then the DNA rule wouldn't really buy you anything in terms of getting more "higher performing" IMPs on the field for more snaps.  But yes, the way our team is built and our limited IMP PR depth at key D positions, we very well may do 8 NATs a lot in the year if the injury situation is suboptimal.

I have a feeling other teams have already 100X out-thought The Mafia braintrust on this.  We may have dropped the ball by not planning our roster around this, at least on D.  Not too late to pick up some FA / cuts!

[pdirks67]

I have a feeling other teams have already 100X out-thought The Mafia braintrust on this. 

This would really surprise me.

[pjrocksmb]

My head spins when I read this stuff but keep it coming it will sink in after a decade.  It will be very interesting to see how it actually plays out for the roster.

[TecnoGenius]

Let's see now. We would normally only have 1 Canadian starting on defence. That being Thomas. So do we " start " the other rookie Canadian DT and then put Walker in for only 23 plays after the 1st play?

What happens if the Designated Canadian player is injured? Do you get to change that player choice during the game.

Ideally you want to make this work with your normal starting 7.  That we only put 1 NAT on D makes it a bit hard for us without an ageing-but-good IMP DT.  Then again we always use our free DIs on D, so that works in our favor.  Given our roster, any solution may require the "not the same position" allowance.  But I can't for the life of me think of the scenario that helps us...

As for injury, great bloody question, clearly the CFL is missing the corner cases.  I would assume another NAT who takes his spot would take over as DNS.  It gets more interesting if due to lack of NAT depth we have to change the NAT to a different position... but since I can't see much way to abuse this for gain, I would think the CFL will let most "normal" situations slide.

Another example. Gauthier starts for play 1 and then is immediately replaced for the next 23 plays by Clements. Gauthier would have been the 8th Canadian starter. Does this then allow us to put in Brian Jones as a DI taking us back to 7 Canadian starters?

Your example would be perfect if we still had Stove starting and Fatboi retired.

Not sure on your Brian Jones example, as I don't see him on our roster and his name doesn't ring any bells.  I guess he'd be an IMP (you say "DI").  From what I understand, no, you can't use this as a way to simultaneously sub in another IMP/DI for for a NAT.  Of course the DI can sub in for any other IMP as usual.

I'm pretty sure that in our D situation if you do the not-same-position DNA/DNS sub that we'd have to put another NAT on the field somewhere.  This might still be useful, though, as we might be subbing in a NAT anyhow as a speller for a tired IMP.  We do that often during every game.  So time those spells with when the DNA/DNS switch occurs.

[TecnoGenius]

This would really surprise me.

We don't have to wait.  Let's see what BC@CGY has done, on the depth charts released today:

BC:
O DNS SB McInnis (SB Petermann) -- DNA SB Rhymes
D DNS DE Betts (DE Menard, DE Archibald, DT Cherry) -- DNA DT Baron

CGY:
O DNS SB Barnes (SB Tucker, WR Middlemost, FB Langlais, FB Power) -- DNA SB Carey
D DNS DT Wiggan (DT Rayam, DT Graham, DE Thomas) -- DNA FS Dozier

Analysis?  Advantages?  I'll think about it and update in a while.  I think the Carey choice is a clear win.  He rarely plays more than 23 snaps anyhow.  But pairing him with Logan (IMP) is weird as what this is really buying CGY is 2-back sets.  If they still had Litre that would have made the perfect DNA/DNS roster!

You know who is going to get the perfect DNA/DNS match-up??  TOR: ageing always-dinged AH33 and Ouellete.  That combo gets Oulette on the field for "free" for 23 snaps, while very capable AH33 stays fresh for the rest.  That will be a killer combo!!  In the GC they had to add in an extra NAT WR to get Oulette on the field.

[TecnoGenius]

Oh ya!  Another interesting and critical point I missed until I saw the actual BC/CGY rosters:

They can designate an unlimited number of DNS NATs it would seem, and not all at the same position.  It does say this in the new rules, but it's unclear as to the intent or total number allowed or how "different" their positions can be (different position but same unit?).

Thus in the CGY O example, every single non-starting NAT on O is their DNS.  So this isn't just "in case of injury", it looks like you can put the DNA on field in place of any of these guys!  Why Hakunavanhu is not also a DNS is beyond me.

This is getting silly and if you look at the actual depth chart with all these crazy brackets and new designations I'm not sure how they expect casual fans or USA-people to have any clue.

I really hope TSN follows this somewhat for game 1 and notes for us when the DNAs enter the field and who came out.  I'm going to need the charts right in front of me the whole game to try to make sense of this.

One more thing: there's only one official DNS so the other "backup DNS's" will need their own acronym: DNB (Designated National Backup).

Ready to cry yet?

[pjrocksmb]

Oh ya!  Another interesting and critical point I missed until I saw the actual BC/CGY rosters:

They can designate an unlimited number of DNS NATs it would seem, and not all at the same position.  It does say this in the new rules, but it's unclear as to the intent or total number allowed or how "different" their positions can be (different position but same unit?).

Thus in the CGY O example, every single non-starting NAT on O is their DNS.  So this isn't just "in case of injury", it looks like you can put the DNA on field in place of any of these guys!  Why Hakunavanhu is not also a DNS is beyond me.

This is getting silly and if you look at the actual depth chart with all these crazy brackets and new designations I'm not sure how they expect casual fans or USA-people to have any clue.

I really hope TSN follows this somewhat for game 1 and notes for us when the DNAs enter the field and who came out.  I'm going to need the charts right in front of me the whole game to try to make sense of this.

One more thing: there's only one official DNS so the other "backup DNS's" will need their own acronym: DNB (Designated National Backup).

Ready to cry yet?

Holy s#it this is complicated

You are right about TO RBs, good place to use it.

[ModAdmin]

On suggestion from Derek Taylor...

Derek Taylor
@DTonOB

1h
Just running through ideas of what the Bombers could do with the Designated Nationalized American (DNA) rule:

Start Greg McCrae in the slot and make Rasheed Bailey the DNA. Bailey can play the whole game and McCrae could play 23 snaps for Wolitarsky, Demski or Oliveira.