Roster Player Categories

[TecnoGenius]

So grant is both a DI and a Nationalized American. He can replace BOO for up to 23 plays. O'Leary-Orange is not the starter so when is he going to see Grant in for him as a replacement. Makes no sense to pick a back up rather than an actual starter. They may as well have picked Woli or Oliveria and Grant might have seen the field on offence 2 or 3 times.

(edited based on new DI/DA nomenclature: the fact that DA is just the replacement term for DI)

DNA is automatically a DA (nee DI), yes.  No, he wouldn't replace BOO, he'd replace Woli for 23 plays.  BOO won't see the field unless Woli is injured or it's garbage time.  You can have 1 starting and many "backup" DNS's.  I see no reason why you wouldn't designate every NAT backup on both sides as a DNS.  Per rule #2 this should be allowed, and gives maximum flexibility.

Of course, we don't want Grant on for Woli for 23 plays because we like Woli and Grant can't fill his role.  But it does help us for maybe 5 plays a game.  That's why the new rules have to be factored in when signing FAs and making ARs...

[Blue In BC]

DNA is automatically a DI, yes.  No, he wouldn't replace BOO, he'd replace Woli for 23 plays.  BOO won't see the field unless Woli is injured or it's garbage time.  You can have 1 starting and many "backup" DNS's.  I see no reason why you wouldn't designate every NAT backup on both sides as a DNS.  Per rule #2 this should be allowed, and gives maximum flexibility.

Of course, we don't want Grant on for Woli for 23 plays because we like Woli and Grant can't fill his role.  But it does help us for maybe 5 plays a game.  That's why the new rules have to be factored in when signing FAs and making ARs...

Not exactly. The Nationalized American can only replace the Designated Canadian and they made that BOO. It can only be that combination which is why that didn't make sense. You can't make all the Canadian receivers the Designated Canadian. That would make more sense.

If they could do that then Grant could replace any Canadian receiver or RB on a given play perhaps 2 - 4 times in a game.

[TecnoGenius]

Castillo is a DA which is the new term for DI. Same deal with Cole. The other two are Grant and Haba. Grant is the only one that would qualify as the Nationalized American but he could only replace O'Leary Orange and he's not a starter anyway.

Yes, thanks BinBC and Junkie, they have renamed DI to DA.  But this is 100% independent of the new FAKENAT stuff.  It's just a nice way to indicate DI (now DA) on the charts, which they never did before (you had to infer).

DNA is a subset DA (nee DI): a mandated one DNA per side.  You still get your 4 DAs (nee DI).  You need a minimum of 1 DA on each side of the ball (this is new!).  One DA on each side is chosen as the DNA.  They must be a vet IMP (3/5 rule).  They must (like a DA) not "start".

There is no such thing as a "Nationalized American" in the new tweeted rules.  There is only a "DNA".  Read the text.  No "NA" phrase used with out "DNA", the "D" in front.  There is no point to specify a "NA", it's meaningless and doesn't fit any new rule.

As for BOO, look at the chart.  Both Woli and Boo have the square brackets showing them to be DNS.  Grant can 100% replace Woli.  In any event, you could put BOO in for Woli, then put Grant in for BOO, so same diff in the end.  You must specify per rule 2 one NAT starter as DNS (and optional backups).

(edited based on new DI/DA nomenclature)

[TecnoGenius]

Not exactly. The Nationalized American can only replace the Designated Canadian and they made that BOO. It can only be that combination which is why that didn't make sense. You can't make all the Canadian receivers the Designated Canadian. That would make more sense.

Read rule 2 in the tweet again:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyCtZjDX0B8FqTO?format=jpg&name=large

One DNS STARTER and (no limit specified) BACKUPs.  Great, so we need yet another term.  Let's call the starter (Woli) the DNS and we'll have to call all the other NATs who counts as the "backups" as DNB's.  Or maybe DNSB.  Argh.

BOO is the DNSB.  Rule 2 by way of saying "do not have to play the same position on the field" and by not setting a limit is saying you can say every non-starting NAT on that side of the ball can be a DNSB!  Seriously, read it!  Look at what CGY/BC did... if you can find the charts as cfl.ca is completely screwed now (no game notes working).

It's insane!

But I guarantee you our chart shows Woli and BOO as DNS/DNSB and Grant can sub for either (for 23 plays).

[TecnoGenius]

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?

No, new FAKENAT rules has nothing to do with AR composition ("starting 8 NATs").  It's still 7 NATs starting (minimum).  New rules just affect how many snaps you must play NATs.  It will reduce NAT snaps by max 46 snaps per game.  I don't think this is the intent, but the intent is to increase IMP snaps, so it's same poop different pile.

[Stats Junkie]

Sorry, but no no and no.

DA is not a new term for a DI.  DA/DNA is a subset of DI: a mandated one DNA per side.  You still get your 4 DIs.  You need a minimum of 1 DI on each side of the ball.  One DI on each side is chosen as the DNA.  They must be a vet IMP (3/5 rule).  They must (like a DI) not "start".

Blue In BC is correct.

DI (designated import) was mothballed when the Global designation was introduced. DI was replaced by DA (designated American).

[TecnoGenius]

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

When they fix the Grant/Castillo mix-up, we may use the Grant DNA in for Woli DNS option a few snaps.

But yes, it really appears as though The Mafia hates this FAKENAT crap and is trying to ostrich their way through it.  Or openly mocking it with so many mistakes and violations.  I wouldn't be surprised if MOS bad-mouths it (as much as he can without getting in trouble) on the next coaches show.

[TecnoGenius]

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?

You got it 100% in your first 2 sentences.  Not sure about your 3rd since we didn't go for Bailey.  Your wording is a bit suspect, but with the complexity of the new rules, who knows...

[TecnoGenius]

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

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

If they are able to keep real-time track like they are promising, then they probably won't let you take snap if it's the 24th play.  They won't whistle it in.  Either that or it will be the exact same thing they do for when a team is 1-down a NAT by accident... if they catch it in time I don't think they run the play.  If they catch it after the game then there's some penalty (fine? reprimand?).

If we had do the McCrae/Bailey idea, then we would have had to make Bailey a DI (and the DNA) and yes we'd lose a DI on D.  That's probably why we didn't do that and Grant is the "free" DNA requiring no DI changes.

[TecnoGenius]

Blue In BC is correct.

DI (designated import) was mothballed when the Global designation was introduced. DI was replaced by DA (designated American).

Oooooh!  They changed nomenclature.  Ok, that makes more sense!  And they are now forcing the marking on the depth chart.  That's a very good thing.

So then some of what I'm saying is wrong, but only in terms of whether a chart is in violation of listing too many DNAs.

But the DNA/DNS screwups remain on the charts.

I'll revise my posts to fit the new information.  Thanks!!  These charts are really getting complicated.

[Blue In BC]

Ok, it does appear that Grant could replace Woli as well as BOO at that spot. He's still only going to see the field a couple of times a game, if that.

As I said a few times, the best way to utilize this is to have veterans in the group of DI's For the Bombers, Grant does qualify but for obvious reasons he won't be used in that role often. Castillo qualifies but he doesn't play any other role on offence or defence.  That leaves it to the other 2 DI's and neither qualify.

A veteran DL like Lemon would qualify but we don't have anyone that senior that isn't a full time starter. A veteran receiver like Ellingson would qualify. However you still have to use a DI spot and that isn't something every team can / will do.

In addition, those players aren't playing for ELC money and we want to restrict their maximum reps?

Yeah. Nope. Bad idea.

[TecnoGenius]

I have edited my previous/deleted posts where I didn't realize DA was just the new term for DI.  And thus the charts from the teams weren't as egregiously messed up as I thought.  I apologize for not getting that right the first time.  Too many chart term/symbol changes at once! 

Luckily it didn't really change too much of what I was saying.  The mistakes as to DNS/DNSB and missing designations on D (and not just WPG) remain as I outlined them.

And I do like the new DA marking as it helps noobs (like me!) more easily spot who the DIs are.  (Even though the charts are getting way too busy/messy.)

As I said a few times, the best way to utilize this is to have veterans in the group of DI's For the Bombers, Grant does qualify but for obvious reasons he won't be used in that role often. Castillo qualifies but he doesn't play any other role on offence or defence.  That leaves it to the other 2 DI's and neither qualify.

You got it now.  As I work through it in depth I'm realizing that it's not just wanting vet IMPs as DI... if you really want to win from this you want to have an extremely good but not every-down vet IMP as DNA, but you probably also want a decent rotation ELC IMP to start in his normal place (who only sees the field as speller for the 23), and a near-ELC-but-good NAT that takes the X-23 as DNS.

It has the strange effect of making it more attractive to take our great IMP vets off as starters (say Jeffcoat), put them on as DNAs, and start the ELC IMPs that are normally our DIs (now DAs) as the starters (say Haba).  And to make things easier/sane you want a decent NAT (but not superstar) to be a starter (DNS) on the same unit as the DNA.  Phew!

The best combo to take advantage of this will be very hard for GMs to sign and AR.  I'm still wrapping my head around it and still trying to spot how WPG can best use it.  I don't think we can without AR changes and maybe new signings.

[pdirks67]

The best combo to take advantage of this will be very hard for GMs to sign and AR.  I'm still wrapping my head around it and still trying to spot how WPG can best use it.  I don't think we can without AR changes and maybe new signings.

1. Appreciate all your effort here!!
2. If I were coach, I'd "ostrich" this whole thing (stealing this term from someone, not sure who). I think that trying to bend over backwards to optimize your lineup to maximize some benefit from this rule is more effort than it's worth. I really think that any benefit would be very marginal. The coaches already have so much to figure out, fine tune, and optimize.
3. I hope they dump this rule next week.

[TecnoGenius]

In addition, those players aren't playing for ELC money and we want to restrict their maximum reps?

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.

[Stats Junkie]

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.