Roster Player Categories

[TecnoGenius]

On suggestion from Derek Taylor...

Derek Taylor
@DTonOB

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.

Hahaha... even our very own home-city anchorman doesn't understand the new rule!  He's got it completely backwards.

If Bailey was the DNA, he (not McCrae) could play 23 plays for Woli/Demski/Brady.  Only the DNA is limited by any "23 snaps".

You still want to try to put the "better" IMP in the game as a starter.  Bailey is way better than McCrae.  BUT because Bailey can be a DNA (3+ years) and McCrae can't, you could start McCrae instead of Bailey, and then Bailey as the DNA can play 23 snaps in place of any NAT receiver.

Maybe this is what DT meant to say.

To complicate things, Bailey as a DI, could also sub in for McCrae.  And you'd probably do that a whole ton so Bailey can play basically the whole game (either in for a NAT or McCrae).  He's like a starter without being a starter.

If DT meant Bailey is DNA and gets the "23 NAT snaps", then for those 23 snaps, assuming Woli loses out, your lineup in game 1 for those 23 snaps would be:

Bailey, Schoen, Demski, McCrae, Agudosi

Who wants that?  That's buying you no advantage IMHO.

So to me the question then becomes is Bailey better than Woli?  I'm not convinced he's "head and shoulders" better.  Maybe a bit better.  So it's not a big win to make Bailey the DNA.  Unless you mostly sub in place of Brady on no-back sets.  But that's only a few snaps a game.  So that's no big win.  And I won't even discuss taking out Demski, as that would be insanity.

So I think Grant makes the better DNA use in game 1 because we're just repeating schemes we used last year: we can get Grant in for the odd sweep or post.  Take out either Woli or Brady, as each play dictates.

The only reason you'd use McCrae (or any IMP RB) is if your IMP RB was better than Brady, or your RB isn't an every-down RB (see Carey).  McCrae isn't anywhere close to Brady.  (This is what TOR will do.)

[Jesse]

Hahaha... even our very own home-city anchorman doesn't understand the new rule!  He's got it completely backwards.

If Bailey was the DNA, he (not McCrae) could play 23 plays for Woli/Demski/Brady.  Only the DNA is limited by any "23 snaps".

You still want to try to put the "better" IMP in the game as a starter.  Bailey is way better than McCrae.  BUT because Bailey can be a DNA (3+ years) and McCrae can't, you could start McCrae instead of Bailey, and then Bailey as the DNA can play 23 snaps in place of any NAT receiver.

Maybe this is what DT meant to say.

To complicate things, Bailey as a DI, could also sub in for McCrae.  And you'd probably do that a whole ton so Bailey can play basically the whole game (either in for a NAT or McCrae).  He's like a starter without being a starter.

If DT meant Bailey is DNA and gets the "23 NAT snaps", then for those 23 snaps, assuming Woli loses out, your lineup in game 1 for those 23 snaps would be:

Bailey, Schoen, Demski, McCrae, Agudosi

Who wants that?  That's buying you no advantage IMHO.

So to me the question then becomes is Bailey better than Woli?  I'm not convinced he's "head and shoulders" better.  Maybe a bit better.  So it's not a big win to make Bailey the DNA.  Unless you mostly sub in place of Brady on no-back sets.  But that's only a few snaps a game.  So that's no big win.  And I won't even discuss taking out Demski, as that would be insanity.

So I think Grant makes the better DNA use in game 1 because we're just repeating schemes we used last year: we can get Grant in for the odd sweep or post.  Take out either Woli or Brady, as each play dictates.

The only reason you'd use McCrae (or any IMP RB) is if your IMP RB was better than Brady, or your RB isn't an every-down RB (see Carey).  McCrae isn't anywhere close to Brady.  (This is what TOR will do.)

It 23 snaps in the place of a Canadian receiver and unlimited snaps taking the place of an American. So hence McCrae coming on for 23 snaps as Bailey take the place of someone else?

[TecnoGenius]

A study on what BC is doing:

(edited due to my confusion over DA vs DNA)

BC has specified no DNA on O, in violation of tweet rule #1.  10 minutes before the game I see no update to their chart to correct this.

On D, BC has DT Baron as the DNA.  They've made every NAT DL a DNS.  They have put GLOB DT Debaillie in front on the depth chart.  He's probably the guy who will sit for most of the plays, when Baron is wearing his "DI hat".  But I fail to see how you rig things for when he's wearing his "DNA hat".  You wouldn't play Baron as a DE, and DT Cherry isn't starting... what's the "winning" substitution here?  I can't see it.  They may have the same problem on D as we do, and not make use of DNS/DNA on D.

Interestingly BC is starting 8 NATs (5O+3D) when of course they don't have to.  Maybe they have some injury or poor IMP D depth roster management like we do.  Or maybe the extra NAT on D allows for some extra complicated substitution using the extra NAT + the DNA?  Now that is really making my brain hurt.

[TecnoGenius]

It 23 snaps in the place of a Canadian receiver and unlimited snaps taking the place of an American. So hence McCrae coming on for 23 snaps as Bailey take the place of someone else?

It could just be the way he chose to word it that makes it sound wrong but ends up being right?

Let's enumerate the possible Bailey-as-DNA sets for game 1 with the assumption you maximize Bailey snaps and minimize McCrae snaps and Woli is always the DNS-loser (actual slot could be different):

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

This assumes for argument's sake that the "skill" ranking is: Woli (least), McCrae, Bailey (best).  I would argue that's not true.  But if you want Bailey in as DNA, this is the only ranking that would make it make sense.

But I guess that makes you and DT correct in that technically "McCrae could play 23 snaps for Wolitarsky".  So his statement is correct (compare (B) and (C) above), but stated in a backwards way from the intent and wording of the rule.  Man, that's a headache inducing way to state the fact!  So what's going on is in essence someone who is neither DNS nor DNA can "play 23 snaps for the DNS".  Ugh.  The whole point was to get the DNA in for 23 snaps at the expense of the DNS but the final effect is to get the DNA in for untalented-ELC-IMP-not-designated-as-anything.

But we have achieved 23 more snaps a game with zero NATs on the O field.  And it is becoming apparent that the DNA is basically a starter who isn't starting (a la Rhymes in BC).

I'm not sure this is good for the league.

(edited to fix DNA/DA confusion)

[TecnoGenius]

A study on what CGY is doing:

On O Carey is the perfect DNA since he never plays every down anyhow.  But no NAT RB, so what will the sub look like?  This is a tougher as when I listed out all the options, the "more IMPs" "winning" options are hard to make because CGY is starting 3 IMP SB/WR and not starting any backup (DI) SB/WR!

Therefore the only possible win I can see is if they put Carey in as SB (sit Barnes), or for 2-back sets (Carey/Logan both on field).  Carey has ok hands, so Carey-as-SB might be the win here.  Is Carey a better SB than Barnes or Haku?  Possibly Barnes.  Works even better if you use Carey in behind-the-LoS plays (screens, sweeps, etc) which are glorified runs anyhow.

In fact, it looks very similar to us if we DNA Grant.  He'd be used in nearly the same way, except our Grant can also speed go routes.  The only difference is our Grant charts as returner, and Carey charts as backup RB.  But they'd really be almost the same thing.  Interesting.  (If CGY still had Litre the Carey/Litre pairing DNA/DNS would be outstanding.  Too bad Huff/Dickey!)

Now, CGY's D:

FS Dozier as DNA.  But all the DNS's are on the DL!

Let's assume they want to minimize FS Griffin (who??) snaps and maximize IMPs-on-field.  How on earth do you achieve that?  FS DNA Dozier in for DT DNS Wiggan (DNA subs for DNS); wrong spots though; so Dozier moves to FS, FS Griffin out (FAKENAT subs for IMP); now a IMP hole at DT but no DT depth (no DT DI!), what to do? Fill the IMP DT hole with a NAT (DT Rayam) and now you can sub in any IMP for a NAT anywhere on the D.  Looks like you'd do LB D.Williams in for Judge.  Is this actually correct?

So in the end you subbed in DNA Dozier for non-DNS, starting Judge and got D.Williams on the field and ditched Griffin?  That's pretty crazy.  And I think you could skip the Rayam/Wiggan step and keep Wiggan in too?  You went from the starting D of 2 NATs to now 1 NAT on D field.  For 23 snaps.  And the other 23 Dozier can be in for Griffin anyhow?

Is it true that at the end of the day you can shuffle the substitutions using normal sub rules (as per above) so really in essence the DNA can sub in for any NAT on that side, whether designated DNS or not?  That includes starting NATs who were specifically excluded from the rules (save for one, the single starting DNS).  Why wouldn't CGY save us all the trouble and just call Judge the single starting DNS?

It can't possibly be any other way because they have no other IMP DL as DI!  The only "win" on their roster is somehow getting LB Williams or LB Stewart on the field.  And I don't think Stewart is better than Awe.  So it must be Williams.  Or... CGY too has not yet figured out a way to use DNA/DNS to "win" on D (join the club).

Who loses in these scenarios?  Judge.  Well, Judge is pretty good; is he D.Williams good?  We'll see what CGY thinks.  At the very least you've helped spell a demanding WILL position.

That's a lot of freaking work and convolution to spell Judge for 23 plays with an IMP for "free"!  Assuming I've got this right... there are "CFL spotters" in the booth that are going to track this in real-time?  Good freaking luck guys!!

(edited to fix DNA/DA confusion)

[Blue In BC]

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.

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.

I meant Brian Cole but typed Jones by mistake.

You might be right that Oliveria becomes the Canadian designated player on offence for the example you suggested.

[Blue In BC]

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.

But then you have to make McCrae a DI and eliminate one of the 2 DI's on defence.

1 year contracts, NFL option window and SMS issues mean retaining players is difficult at the best of times.  I don't see this new rule helping to extend players careers. IMO it does take away reps from Canadian players which may or may not have been part of the intent.

They could have achieved this a lot easier. Now they have to have spotters in every game keeping track of this activity.

What's the penalty if that player plays a 24th play replacing a Canadian?

I was already waiting to see our depth chart to see who didn't move to IR and whether any changes were made to the DI's.

Now have to see and figure out what the Nationalized players are for the imports and the Canadians.

[theaardvark]

So, a DNA can play 23 snaps in place of a NAT, and unlimited snaps in place of a INT, correct?

He is basically a specialize DI.

So, when we need the extra NAT on, Bailey is that DNA, and when we don't, Bailey subs for McRae.

Did I get it right?

[Blue In BC]

So, a DNA can play 23 snaps in place of a NAT, and unlimited snaps in place of a INT, correct?

He is basically a specialize DI.

So, when we need the extra NAT on, Bailey is that DNA, and when we don't, Bailey subs for McRae.

Did I get it right?

I've seen two copies of our depth chart on Facebook. It's still a mystery. It looks like we only have 22 imports instead of 23. Grant is listed as an import but not a DI. Nobody was listed as Nationalized Americans or Designated Canadians???

Haba, Cole and Castillo as listed as Designated Imports ( DI's ). Maybe I miss counted or perhaps Grant was listed incorrectly as just an import instead of a DI.


McCrae isn't on the depth chart.

[Jesse]

Our depth chart indicates we wont be utilizing the new rule at all.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I've seen two copies of our depth chart on Facebook. It's still a mystery. It looks like we only have 22 imports instead of 23. Grant is listed as an import but not a DI. Nobody was listed as Nationalized Americans or Designated Canadians???

Haba, Cole and Castillo as listed as Designated Imports ( DI's ). Maybe I miss counted or perhaps Grant was listed incorrectly as just an import instead of a DI.


McCrae isn't on the depth chart.

From what I can tell O'Shea isn't going to employ the Fake Natl. rule change for this game and good on him, as the way other teams are abusing the loopholes, completely subverts the intention of the rule change.  The CFL can't help but shoot itself in the foot at every opportunity given.

[theaardvark]

Ok, did I miss something?  Isn't the new rule supposed to take starting NAT's to 8, with the Fake Nat's being able to sub in for 23 of those snaps?

The facebook posted lineup shows Grant as our fake nat, Castilo Cole and Haba as DA's (designated American read DI), Wolitarsky ss a Nationalized American DA, and BOO as a designated National, none of which makes any sense to me...

https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/352800008_1043690046612359_5594891658768871925_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=SkvFxeXogJMAX-jGWcV&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=00_AfAgkpQF9OZdokbPfaXe3wohSIv_TwH3HQVF8rrHw7UGEA&oe=648668C4

[Jesse]

Ok, did I miss something?  Isn't the new rule supposed to take starting NAT's to 8, with the Fake Nat's being able to sub in for 23 of those snaps?

The facebook posted lineup shows Grant as our fake nat, Castilo Cole and Haba as DA's (designated American read DI), Wolitarsky ss a Nationalized American DA, and BOO as a designated National, none of which makes any sense to me...

https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/352800008_1043690046612359_5594891658768871925_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=SkvFxeXogJMAX-jGWcV&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=00_AfAgkpQF9OZdokbPfaXe3wohSIv_TwH3HQVF8rrHw7UGEA&oe=648668C4

We've all missed several things. This is all nonsense.

[Blue In BC]

I didn't expect Rose to end up on the 6 game IR. Aside from that the players I thought would come off the roster and onto IR did happen.

Miller is shown as a GTD but he always seems to play. If in fact he doesn't play I guess Murphy comes on as an extra receiver.  Can't see Szott coming in and he's the only other Canadian on the PR.

[theaardvark]

I'm thinking by week 3 this is either hashed out or trashed.

What they should do is put in a veterans clause that requires a set number of players with 4 years with your team or 5 years plus in the CFL be on your team.  Both Nat's and Ints. Maybe 3 of each. Max 1 ST player (kicker.LS/returner)

Don't need to be starters, just on the AR.

Simple, really.  Accomplishes more, with less effort.