Roster Player Categories

[Blue In BC]

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.

No I'm not talking about not being on the AR.

I pointed out how it worked with the previous DI rule. In that instance it was a direct replacement for an import. Not necessarily at the same position. I gave examples of a bunch of possible options that work technically.  With the new rule, that DI can go in for a Canadian. That is the new variant.  Nothing was clarified that it still didn't include that requirement to pull an import as well.

If the rule was to extend aging import vets and not reduce reps overall for Canadians, then that would be true. If the goal is twofold, then they don't pull another import for that play or series.

Global players can only replace an import. In that sense they are DI's. I haven't heard anything covering / including them in the new category. Hansen would qualify as a 3+ year player.

Lots of holes in the Nationalized American idea.

The number of imports doesn't change with or without a Nationalized American.

[Blue In BC]

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...

Correct. I don't think he'd be the best choice, just that he'd qualify. There have been examples where the returner has also been a back up DB skill level player or a very good receiver/ RB. Grant is neither. He's really just the returner 98% of the time.



On other teams their returner might be a more viable option.

[TecnoGenius]

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.

Ya, but that would have a non-effect because they'd just say their K and returner are the vets (like us).  Boom, they complied with the new rule without any actual effect to vet IMPs.

But you're on the right path in that how could they better provide that vetimp security?  Clearly this FAKENAT stuff isn't popular.  Heaven help the CFL if a wily team juices their team to the max with it and becomes visibly unstoppable!

I still like my 10% off the SMS hit per player per year on team (or 5% if on an other-than-current team).  So we pay Willie 150k but he only counts as (3 years WPG, 5 years other teams = 55% discount) 67.5k to our SMS calculation!  (%'s can be tweaked to make common cases more reasonable; and total SMS would have to drop.)  Any vetimp ideas should also encourage same-team retention.  My idea does, the FAKENAT idea does not.  But no one else likes the idea, so if anyone wants to discuss, start a new thread or PM me!!

[Blue In BC]

Ya, but that would have a non-effect because they'd just say their K and returner are the vets (like us).  Boom, they complied with the new rule without any actual effect to vet IMPs.

But you're on the right path in that how could they better provide that vetimp security?  Clearly this FAKENAT stuff isn't popular.  Heaven help the CFL if a wily team juices their team to the max with it and becomes visibly unstoppable!

I still like my 10% off the SMS hit per player per year on team (or 5% if on an other-than-current team).  So we pay Willie 150k but he only counts as (3 years WPG, 5 years other teams = 55% discount) 67.5k to our SMS calculation!  (%'s can be tweaked to make common cases more reasonable; and total SMS would have to drop.)  Any vetimp ideas should also encourage same-team retention.  My idea does, the FAKENAT idea does not.  But no one else likes the idea, so if anyone wants to discuss, start a new thread or PM me!!

The trick is finding good veteran imports and finding them at SMS levels that make sense. By definition, veterans make more money even on the downside. Protecting the older player means succession of new players becomes more difficult.

Rookie DI's either move up to become starters or it's next please the following year.

[TecnoGenius]

I pointed out how it worked with the previous DI rule. In that instance it was a direct replacement for an import. Not necessarily at the same position. I gave examples of a bunch of possible options that work technically.  With the new rule, that DI can go in for a Canadian. That is the new variant.  Nothing was clarified that it still didn't include that requirement to pull an import as well.

This is contradictory, is it not?  So I can understand, then, in your mind at this current time, what is the effect of the rule?

I think you're the only one who is thinking that it is remotely possible the FAKENAT rule would require you to "pull an import as well"?  If that is the case then the FAKENAT rule would be nothing, a no-op, a no-change, a big heap of status quo.  And what on earth would the "49%" be fore?  Therefore the FAKENAT rule MUST mean some change to the existing "pull an import" DI rules.

(Someone in another thread said FAKENATs can only be Americans, so we can completely ignore the GLOBs for now.  CFLPA cares even less about the GLOBs than they do the ELC IMPs.)

Other than that one point, you're right about everything else in your quoted post.

[TecnoGenius]

The trick is finding good veteran imports and finding them at SMS levels that make sense. By definition, veterans make more money even on the downside. Protecting the older player means succession of new players becomes more difficult.

That is why I tend to focus on the O side for FAKENAT examples as it's easier to spot and rate "good" (at least for me).  There's the long-career were-very-good vet WRs at the end of their careers that are the perfect examples for this rule.  None are bank-breakers.

Like Darvin Adams, Ellingson, on-the-bubble-Bailey, and in the past guys like Dressler (at his retirement).  The only question is can those guys play better than the low to mid-level NAT?  If so, you can juice your roster, and save money, by pairing ELC NAT or Woli-level NAT with a FAKENAT.

I bet that the teams with good recent ELC NAT DPs like the Philpots will have some near-retirement FAKENATs that will take a ton of their snaps this season.  Oh, and lookie who hired Ellingson: MTL with their Philpot.  Boom.

That said, the WPG example and what many here are focussing on regarding FAKENATs on D is probably going to be the more common case, especially because there's usually more depth on D, and the star NATs are rarer, and ratio-fillers (think Hurl) NATs more common.

[TecnoGenius]

Are we having fun yet? The 1st game is Thursday so can't see this happening yet.

I'm having great fun.    The months-dead forum is finally alive with chatter, discussion, debate and excitement.

[Blue In BC]

This is contradictory, is it not?  So I can understand, then, in your mind at this current time, what is the effect of the rule?

I think you're the only one who is thinking that it is remotely possible the FAKENAT rule would require you to "pull an import as well"?  If that is the case then the FAKENAT rule would be nothing, a no-op, a no-change, a big heap of status quo.  And what on earth would the "49%" be fore?  Therefore the FAKENAT rule MUST mean some change to the existing "pull an import" DI rules.

(Someone in another thread said FAKENATs can only be Americans, so we can completely ignore the GLOBs for now.  CFLPA cares even less about the GLOBs than they do the ELC IMPs.)

Other than that one point, you're right about everything else in your quoted post.

It was mentioned that they might not implement this rule in 2023 because they don't know HOW to implement it.

If it was as black and white as just replacing a Canadian part of the time, there would be no question how to implement the change.

Take our current roster at the moment.

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.

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 can't think of another reason the CFL would have conflict in not knowing how to implement the rule? Can you come up with one?

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.

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.

Is their an issue / conflict on determining how many you can have? I've always said it has to fall on DI's only. What would be the point being in having half the veteran import starters all under that designation. That would really be a mess: On offence, Bailey, Lawler, Hardrick, Bryant, Collaros and Grant all qualify.

Anyway, it doesn't seem it will happen this season. I'd really like to understand the reasoning behind the leagues confusion.

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.

There are easier ways to achieve that. Change the ratio.

On with the games starting Thursday.

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.

[ModAdmin]

From Dave Naylor...

https://twitter.com/TSNDaveNaylor/status/1666522525096988697/photo/1

[3rdand1.5]

Well considering Rymes and Kadeem Carey are back-ups, it seems the abuse and loopholes have started with week one game one....lol

So if I understand this a entry level barely cracking the roster CDN receiver can be a "starter" let's say on Cal. then he comes out on offensive play two and Carey takes his place. Carey then gets to play 23 snaps, and if they get to the 24th, the "starter" goes back in, and finishes the game....So Carey comes out for punts, out for field goals and PA's, out for short yardage, out for 2nd and long. So if my math is correct, 60ish plays on offence, less previously mentioned is about, just guessing 30 plays a game, guy that starts get's one so Carey plays +/- 75% of meaningful offensive snaps which is what a regular starting back would play anyway.....


Yep seems legit....lol

[TBURGESS]

https://3downnation.com/2023/06/07/opinion-new-cfl-roster-rules-make-mockery-of-the-game/

Ka?Deem Carey, the league?s best running back, will be a backup when the Stampeders host B.C. on Thursday. This is because he is the team?s designated nationalized American on offence and, as such, can?t be in the starting lineup.

Though he technically meets the criteria to be a designated nationalized American, Carey doesn?t remotely fit the role for which the designation was intended. He?s a star player. He should be a starter regardless of who else is on the roster.

Carey will sit out for the first snap of the game while Peyton Logan, a return specialist and backup running back, gets the start. Carey will likely enter the game on the very next play as designated nationalized Americans are able to freely replace American players.

The Stampeders will then be able to keep Carey on the field for the rest of the game, provided Logan remains on the bench. If the team wants to get Logan involved in the offence, they can do so for 23 plays. Why? Because he?s merely returning to his place the starting lineup. Carey is the one (technically) replacing the Canadian player. As the designated nationalized American, he can take the place of a designated national for up to 23 plays, remember?

Canadian receivers Clark Barnes, Cole Tucker, and Tyson Middlemost have all been listed as designated nationals, as have fullbacks William Langlais and Charlie Power. This means the Stampeders can replace any of them with Logan as Carey is technically the one filling their spot.

[bomb squad]

I did a calculation of the average number of running and passing plays using a random sample of 10 games from every other week across the 2022 season. The average number of plays was 51. 23 would be 45%. Just an FYI.

[TecnoGenius]

Ok, it's all more ridiculous and complicated than we had been led to believe.

Quick "HOT" takes:

1. They wait until 36 hours before the season kick-off to clarify the rules??  Bush league.  How to GMs and HCs plan their season around rules changing mere moments before games?

2. 49% becomes "23 plays"?  They pull that out of their butt?  Throw darts and add up the sum?  Ok Squad says approx 45%, so maybe it's a wash, but everything we heard before was % based.  At least the "spotters" can have a hope in heck of enforcing it now.  But if you're a garbage team with very little TOP, or an explosion team who always gets TDs with just 3-4 plays, the FAKENAT could play near 100% of the O snaps!!

3. Good luck on those new spotters.  That is not going to be easy to track live.  They already hired the new guys?  They got trained already on rules they just came up with over night?  How are they going to communicate it down to the field?

4. The 3-same-team or 5-all-of-cfl is a very good thing as it will (slightly) encourage player retention.  I might have made it more drastic a difference.

I haven't read the 3down article yet, but from the headline I expect they'll illustrate many of the other downsides I'm already thinking up.

[M.O.A.B.]

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

[pdirks67]

This is too confusing to even put any further thought into. I've read the article a couple times and I couldn't explain this rule to anyone.