Observations on the Rider Game

[ModAdmin]

Houston??was awful. He did nothing.

Houston did not seem to have a stellar game but we don't know if he was being picked on or trying to cover for other DBs most, if not all, who were new players.  He was decent last year and playing along side Bomber regulars, will likely do a pretty good job.

[Blue In BC]

We must keep in mind Houston is still basically a 2nd year CFL player (came in late in '21).  Also keep in mind Houston got burned by T.Harris and D.Walker, two very respected near-decade vets.

That first long bomb to Walker near the EZ had Houston in perfect position, but the ball was a perfect ball and Walker played it perfectly to body-out Houston.  Ya, I guess Houston could have anticipated and turned to bat it down, but not every 2nd year DB can do that, and since he knew he was against Walker, he probably figured it was better to ensure he got the tackle (remember Roberson losing the 2019 WDF trying to make the big bat-down instead of the tackle?)

Houston was in receiver pockets all night long, against very good receivers.  And he tackled well (his main bugbear in '21).  I'm not worried about Houston.  He's clearly part of the plan, and more important than ever with Parker gone for 9+ weeks (guess).

Agudosi.  Once Lawler is back this could be a way to get Agudosi on the field.  If Agudosi and Lawler are going gangbusters you can get Bailey on the field as a 49% speller for Woli, or BOO if he is ever starting.  That's a big "if" on Agudosi, of course.  He might turn out worse than Bailey long-term.

Do you need the ratio and DI's explained again? This concept means we are playing 3 Canadian receivers 51% of the time.

[pjrocksmb]

Houston did not seem to have a stellar game but we don't know if he was being picked on or trying to cover for other DBs most, if not all, who were new players.  He was decent last year and playing along side Bomber regulars, will likely do a pretty good job.

Agree all decent player

[the paw]

Do you need the ratio and DI's explained again? This concept means we are playing 3 Canadian receivers 51% of the time.

I don't think you are correct.  He is suggesting Wolitarsky and Bailey split a position.  Demski would be the other Canadian starter.  It doesn't require a 3rd CDN starting receiver.

What makes it impractical is that Bailey would have to become a DI, which is very unlikely given that we have to DI Castillo. That's assuming the league has actually figured out the implementation, I'm not sure that's the case.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Houston did not seem to have a stellar game but we don't know if he was being picked on or trying to cover for other DBs most, if not all, who were new players.  He was decent last year and playing along side Bomber regulars, will likely do a pretty good job.

He should be worrying about his own job and not that of his neighbours, that was a bad performance by Houston but you should never turn your back on Derel Walker, the guy can still play at a very high level.  Great pickup for Sask..

[TecnoGenius]

Do you need the ratio and DI's explained again? This concept means we are playing 3 Canadian receivers 51% of the time.

Paw is right: my idea was Bailey would 49% for Woli; or if Woli or Demski is hurt, Bailey could 49% for BOO.  It reduces the 2-NAT-WR-snaps by 49%.

As someone else said, though, Bailey might not like that role.  However, he'd still be on AR, and still get his full salary.  But it might mess with any incentives he may have built-in.

It probably won't come to pass as we'd have to be very lucky that Agudosi is a superstar early in the season, and Bailey would have to be unlucky in that he'd have to be less productive than his average.

[Blue In BC]

I don't think you are correct.  He is suggesting Wolitarsky and Bailey split a position.  Demski would be the other Canadian starter.  It doesn't require a 3rd CDN starting receiver.

What makes it impractical is that Bailey would have to become a DI, which is very unlikely given that we have to DI Castillo. That's assuming the league has actually figured out the implementation, I'm not sure that's the case.

That's the point. Bailey would have to become a DI.  Bailey and Woli are already both starters. In this scenario, when Bailey is NOT on the field, you need another receiver. By definition that means BOO would would be on the field: Demski, Woli, BOO, Schoen and Lawler ( Agudosi for the moment ).

Five receiver sets are used most of the time.  At times we use an OL as a TE or Miller as a FB. We lost Burtenshaw to injury so even that option is reduced.

If BOO and / or any 3rd Canadian receiver 51% of the time is equal to Bailey then that's fine. If using a DI spot for that purpose makes sense then fine as well.

Neither of those options is believable and yes I think it indicates a lack of understanding of ratio and roster management with DI's in general. The roster has been built utilizing 3 imports as DI's on defence for many seasons. The global players were defensive players.

Yes we could dress 2 more offensive players as DI's instead. Our current roster didn't do that and neither has our past rosters. It's the same reason why we don't dress an OL as a DI. You have to understand the best use of who backs up who and how it applies to the ratio and team depth. Grant as a returner gets a few reps on offence but if there is an injury a 3rd Canadian plays. We don't roster a receiver as a DI.

As long as we have 6 starting Canadians on offence and only 1 on defence that is the logic.

The number of imports doesn't change. So you'd have to ask the question where would we start another import elsewhere if a current starter is flipped to a part time starter as a DI?

[pdirks67]

That's the point. Bailey would have to become a DI.  Bailey and Woli are already both starters. In this scenario, when Bailey is NOT on the field, you need another receiver. By definition that means BOO would would be on the field: Demski, Woli, BOO, Schoen and Lawler ( Agudosi for the moment ).

Five receiver sets are used most of the time.  At times we use an OL as a TE or Miller as a FB. We lost Burtenshaw to injury so even that option is reduced.

If BOO and / or any 3rd Canadian receiver 51% of the time is equal to Bailey then that's fine. If using a DI spot for that purpose makes sense then fine as well.

Neither of those options is believable and yes I think it indicates a lack of understanding of ratio and roster management with DI's in general. The roster has been built utilizing 3 imports as DI's on defence for many seasons. The global players were defensive players.

Yes we could dress 2 more offensive players as DI's instead. Our current roster didn't do that and neither has our past rosters. It's the same reason why we don't dress an OL as a DI. You have to understand the best use of who backs up who and how it applies to the ratio and team depth. Grant as a returner gets a few reps on offence but if there is an injury a 3rd Canadian plays. We don't roster a receiver as a DI.

As long as we have 6 starting Canadians on offence and only 1 on defence that is the logic.

The number of imports doesn't change. So you'd have to ask the question where would we start another import elsewhere if a current starter is flipped to a part time starter as a DI?

I think this conversation might be better had in the Roster Player Categories thread?

I'm still really dubious about the point of this whole "Nationalized American" thing...

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I think this conversation might be better had in the Roster Player Categories thread?

I'm still really dubious about the point of this whole "Nationalized American" thing...

It also might not even come into force this year after all. The last I heard is there was some doubt it would be ready in time.

[the paw]

That's the point. Bailey would have to become a DI.  Bailey and Woli are already both starters. In this scenario, when Bailey is NOT on the field, you need another receiver. By definition that means BOO would would be on the field: Demski, Woli, BOO, Schoen and Lawler ( Agudosi for the moment ).

You are over explaining in an attempt to defend a misreading of his suggestion.

He is saying our starting 5 receivers should be Demski, Lawler, Agudosi, Schoen and Woli/Bailey.  That would be permissible, would require no other ratio adjustment on D or elsewhere.

The reason it doesn't work, is that it requires Bailey to become a DI, and that doesn't compute.  You and I agree fully on that point, given how the Bombers use DIs.  My only point WS that the 3 national receivers was a red herring in this case.

[Blue In BC]

It also might not even come into force this year after all. The last I heard is there was some doubt it would be ready in time.

They better figure it out. The 1st games are this week. lol

[Sir Blue and Gold]

They better figure it out. The 1st games are this week. lol

Yes, but there was some talk that the league and CFLPA couldn't quite figure out the best way to implement it and has opened the door to circling back on that for next year.

[Blue In BC]

You are over explaining in an attempt to defend a misreading of his suggestion.

He is saying our starting 5 receivers should be Demski, Lawler, Agudosi, Schoen and Woli/Bailey.  That would be permissible, would require no other ratio adjustment on D or elsewhere.

The reason it doesn't work, is that it requires Bailey to become a DI, and that doesn't compute.  You and I agree fully on that point, given how the Bombers use DIs.  My only point WS that the 3 national receivers was a red herring in this case.

That's not exactly correct without understanding which import isn't added to the roster with Bailey becoming a DI. The number of imports is a fixed quantity. Adding Agudosi means 1 import needs to come off.

Normally a DI replaces another import on the same side of the ball. The Nationalized American is a twist in that he can replace a Canadian 49% of the time. Without rule clarification would that mean we'd have to take Bryant or Hardrick off the game day roster ( for example ) to add Agudosi?

That would be an example under the usual DI rules if we are to assume 3 starting import receivers.

[Blue In BC]

Yes, but there was some talk that the league and CFLPA couldn't quite figure out the best way to implement it and has opened the door to circling back on that for next year.

There is only realistic way this might work IMO and they won't do it. That would be to increase the roster by 1 and / or change the ratio by one for adding a Nationalized American.

Even I wouldn't agree to that and I'm anti ratio.

I'm fine with the rule and this idea to crash and burn.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

There is only realistic way this might work IMO and they won't do it. That would be to increase the roster by 1 and / or change the ratio by one for adding a Nationalized American.

Even I wouldn't agree to that and I'm anti ratio.

I'm fine with the rule and this idea to crash and burn.

They don't need to change anything, it's simple in implementation. The American DIs can just rotate with Canadians as well as Americans as long as they don't play more than 49%. I think the hold up would be how to enforce and how to track.