Official Game Day Thread - Edmonton at Winnipeg - July 20, 2023

[Sir Blue and Gold]

We started 8 NATS AND 1 GBL...  We are required to start 7 NATS, and Zero GLB.

Declaring how many NATs/GLBs you start on either side of the ball is done pre-game, so if you bring in an INT for a NAT, you have to bring in a NAT for an INT (McCrae in for Oliveira, Oleary Orange in for Bailey).

But if you declare you are starting 2 Nats on D and 5 on O, and you have 6 starting on O, then you can sub in McCrae for Oliveria without making the Bailey/OO move.

Not sure how Mauro starting as a GLB factors in, if you can sub in an INT for him without ratio issues....

We are required to start 8 nationals, one of which can be a nationalized American. From the 8, you must declare how many of each our on O or D. We've been doing 6+2 for the most part. In this context, you can sub whatever you want as long as 6 nationals are on offense and 2 are on defense.

[theaardvark]

We haven't started 8 NATs all year, I believe this was the first time, and the first time we started a GLB.

Until this week, we have had 6 NATs on O, and Thomas starting on D.  This is the first time we had 2 NATs starting on D.

https://www.bluebombers.com/2023-position-charts/

[Sir Blue and Gold]

We haven't started 8 NATs all year, I believe this was the first time, and the first time we started a GLB.

Until this week, we have had 6 NATs on O, and Thomas starting on D.  This is the first time we had 2 NATs starting on D.

https://www.bluebombers.com/2023-position-charts/

Right. Because one has always been a nationalized American. The rules are 8 or 7+1.

[Blue In BC]

Right. Because one has always been a nationalized American. The rules are 8 or 7+1.

It doesn't change the scenario that the Nationalized American was already starting. You could call Jefferson that but it just a change in name not in real function. We could name a dozen Americans as Nationalized but it's a net zero change.

Aren't teams supposed to designate the Nationalized American?

As I continue to point out you can't name any American player that has replaced a Canadian.

EDIT: For the 2023 season teams must indicate the designated Nationalized Americans and the designated Nationals that that player may replace for a maximum of 23 plays

Go ahead I'll wait. Name those indicated in the rule in any of our games.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

It doesn't change the scenario that the Nationalized American was already starting. You could call Jefferson that but it just a change in name not in real function. We could name a dozen Americans as Nationalized but it's a net zero change.

Aren't teams supposed to designate the Nationalized American?

As I continue to point out you can't name any American player that has replaced a Canadian.

EDIT: For the 2023 season teams must indicate the designated Nationalized Americans and the designated Nationals that that player may replace for a maximum of 23 plays

Go ahead I'll wait. Name those indicated in the rule in any of our games.

I linked you two articles where teams did it? I sent you a link to an updated webpage on the league's own website that outlines the rule and tells you it is in force in 2023. What more do you want? How do you want the proof? A screenshot of some strange TSN angle? Do you want me to try and keep track of all the substitutions at the next game at IG Field. Why? If you don't want to believe it I'm not going to make it my part time job to convince you. 

[Blue In BC]

I linked you two articles where teams did it? I sent you a link to an updated webpage on the league's own website that outlines the rule and tells you it is in force in 2023. What more do you want? How do you want the proof? A screenshot of some strange TSN angle? Do you want me to try and keep track of all the substitutions at the next game at IG Field. Why? If you don't want to believe it I'm not going to make it my part time job to convince you. 

I want you to give one exact example of how the Bombers have utilized the rule. Name the Nationalized American and the Canadian he subbed in for.  Naming any of the veteran imports as a Nationalized doesn't impact the result if they are already starting.

The way our roster is constructed we don't have a functional option. It's not that hard to see.

Bryant and Hardrick as Nationalized Americans? They play every down barring injury. They won't be going in to replace a Canadian. Copy and paste that example with Jeffcoat, Jefferson or any import that is a full time starter.

Your links were about other teams. Those teams have veteran imports that were rotational starters in any case. I've mentioned that a player like Lemon COULD have served that purpose on the DL to replace Thomas some of the time.

We don't have that luxury with a younger group of imports that aren't full time starters.

If Clements was healthy and starting and Wilson was added: we could then have Wilson sub in for Thomas in a 34 defence for example. Or if and when Rose is added, he could be added in a 6 DB set.

At the moment those players are not available.

We can go on and on about this. Just list the imports that qualify and then tell me which one is doing anything different than if the rule didn't exist. It sounds like a simple question.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I want you to give one exact example of how the Bombers have utilized the rule. Name the Nationalized American and the Canadian he subbed in for.  Naming any of the veteran imports as a Nationalized doesn't impact the result if they are already starting.

The way our roster is constructed we don't have a functional option. It's not that hard to see.

Bryant and Hardrick as Nationalized Americans? They play every down barring injury. They won't be going in to replace a Canadian. Copy and paste that example with Jeffcoat, Jefferson or any import that is a full time starter.

Your links were about other teams. Those teams have veteran imports that were rotational starters in any case. I've mentioned that a player like Lemon COULD have served that purpose on the DL to replace Thomas some of the time.

We don't have that luxury with a younger group of imports that aren't full time starters.

If Clements was healthy and starting and Wilson was added: we could then have Wilson sub in for Thomas in a 34 defence for example. Or if and when Rose is added, he could be added in a 6 DB set.

At the moment those players are not available.

We can go on and on about this. Just list the imports that qualify and then tell me which one is doing anything different than if the rule didn't exist. It sounds like a simple question.

You're getting weird. I never set out to do that. This conversation started when Aardvark said this:

We are starting 8 Nats, so regard Kramdi as the 8th NAT on the starters depth chart, so any American can sub for him... because then we'd still have 7 Nat starters...

Which is false for like a hundred reasons. Then you wrote something also wrong and I corrected you. It was never my intention or desire or try and prove to you the Bombers are subbing their naturalized American with a Canadian directly. Can they? Yes, should they want. Last game, for example, they would have had the option to sub Kramdi directly for Darby. Did they? I never saw it but I wasn't looking for it. I also think they think Kramdi is better so why would they do that?

Still, the rule exists. Teams have done it. What Aardvark initially said and what you said right after is wrong. That's about as far as I can will myself to care to explain to you, in all honesty. Get it or don't. It doesn't bother me.

[GOLDMEMBER]

Just watching the game over again now.

Prukop looked brutal in the first half.

He currently is the opposite of a consistent reliable short yardage specialist. Aside for the short yardage sneak for the first tuddy he was terrible. Disappointing. Piggy might have been a better option.

[pjrocksmb]

Prukop will come around. Proven vet with a good skill set.  A few games means nothing.

[GOLDMEMBER]

The punter impressed me. He can certainly bomb it to the corner.

[ModAdmin]

Dave Campbell
@Dave_CHED

7h
#Elks H.C. Chris Jones says the inability of Maurice Ffrench to block effectively especially in the run game is the main reason for his release. Jones says there have been too many busts and Ffrench has been asked repeatedly to be more physical. Jones simply had enough. #CFL

[TecnoGenius]

Cole took a few reps then took a bad penalty which OShea really didnt like.  

I thought the timing looked fine.  Marginal, but ok.  So was it the marginal slight H2H that got Proulx in a wad?  I love how there was no penalty forever then Corny on his bum is looking right at Proulx calling for a flag and Proulx throws it.  Peer pressure much, Proulx?

I never did see a good angle that showed definitively it was H2H.

[TecnoGenius]

Gray was replaced by Dobson due to Gray not feeling quite right. I suspect he'll be starting again after the bye.

EDIT: I've changed my opinion. I think Rose starts next game for ADS. ADS is still learning but he's getting targeted. Rose adds veteran experience.

(I'm super late to the thread, since I was reading along with my rewatch of the game.  Didn't know there was a whole debate going on later in the thread!  Catching up now.)

Our OL looked no worse with Dobson replacing Gray.  That's not good for Gray... We may be toying with this Dobson / Gray choice in a few more games.

I think Rose is a shoe-in for Swarm's (ADS) spot.  Rewatch every game with Swarm in.  He is always 5 yards off the short / mid / out route and then closes in for the immediate no-YAC tackle.  He's good at that tackle, for sure.  But that's not what we need in that position.  It's not Swarm's fault: I'm positive he's being told this is what he must do.  It gives up the small play with the upside of avoiding the explosion.  It's what you'd expect of a rookie not named Alford.

But giving up that outlet "for free" to teams will not win games against BC and TOR.  We need a guy, like Rose or Parker, who can play the guy, threaten the INT, and disrupt the catch.  Rose can do that.

[TecnoGenius]

https://www.cfl.ca/game-rule-ratio/

That's not how it works. We thought it might in the off-season, but they have implemented it differently. Go to the Ottawa game depth chart. We need 8 Canadian spots one of which can be (is, in our case) a naturalized Canadian. In that game we declare:

I figured out why SB&G and BinBC can't find a consensus, and it's pretty simple: you're talking about different things.

I (and probably BinBC and probably most other fans) had no idea the 8 NAT starter was in effect (still?).  Here's the key (BinBC): the 8 NAT starter thing (with one being "nationalized american") is completely separate from and has nothing to do with the DNA ("designated nationalized american") thing.  What we've discussed to death in other threads, and mostly figured out, is the DNA rule.  So set aside the DNA stuff for a sec: seriously, just ignore it...

SB&G is informing us the dumb 2022 "8 NAT starters / 7+1 starters" rule is still a thing.  That's news to me.  I thought it didn't even survive the start of 2022.  But it really doesn't matter because -- and here's the key -- for most every team this is what us CompSci people call a no-op.  It's a nothingburger that doesn't really change anything at all, and the reason is every team has a ton of "nationalized american" (think vet IMP) players.  So the realized depth chart effect is basically nothing.  You really couldn't tell a 2022/23 chart apart from a '21 chart with regards to this.

It does explain one thing, though: the weird occasions we saw 8 NATs start in '22, and the one we just saw.  They weren't weird at all, we just didn't have the right mix of vet-IMPs that week due to injury or whatever.  Now the Kramdi start doesn't seem weird at all.  It would take us starting 9 NATs now to qualify as "weird".

This 8 NAT thing also added the proviso that any of these NAs (vet IMPs) could sub in for an injured NAT.  Recall that I, and others, were worried about it being heavily abused in '22: stubbed toes on play 1 by a NAT, sub in a Kenny Lawler the rest of the game.  I had thought the rule wasn't in effect last year, but I guess it was.  I guess the "cheating" possibility didn't really materialize (that's good).  But there's still room for abuse: Oullette should qualify as NA now, so what if you start AH33 at RB, with Oullette #2 RB, then in the '23 GC you could have AH33 get "hurt" on the 1st play and have Oullette play the whole rest of the game as a NAT for free!  (Without even having to use him a DNA!)

Now, once you grok the above ratio change from '22, then now bring in the DNA stuff on top of that.  Anyhow, that's how I finally figured it all out, since I know that both you guys are generally not wrong on ratio rules.

One last thing makes this all even more confusing: The depth charts are not using the nomenclature correctly and they aren't showing any of this extra roster info.  On the charts they do not indicate any of the (many) NAs ("nationalized americans")!  Worse: they are using NA (indicated by parens) nomenclature to indicate the DNA!  Argh, my brain!  So when you see the parens () / NA, you must in your brain change it to DNA.  That is why I always call them DNA when I post on threads, because they are not NA!  Well, they are a NA, but they are the NA, the one designated NA.

One can deduce all the (many) NAs by looking up each player in the cfl db (if it worked), but the chart isn't showing it or giving us any help.  However, you cannot (necessarily) deduce the +1 NA when teams are starting 7 NAT, and thus you cannot (necessarily) deduce the exact side-of-ball count of NATs for the ratio!  Clearly by rule this info is giving to the league, so why not force them to specify on the charts for us fans??  It would be hard for a fan to watch the substitutions and ensure a team isn't cheating without being privy to this info.  Sure, by the end of the game the info could probably be deduced, but it would nice to see the ratio spelled out.

[TecnoGenius]

My big question: If you start 7(NAT)+1(NA), can another NA (a NA DA) sub in for the 1 NA?  Or must it be a NAT?

One would think another (any!) NA'd DA could sub in for the NA (replacing "like for like").  I'm not talking injury, just normal spelling / rotation.

But the url SB&G provided doesn't really speak to that, well except for: "[A DA] may only replace an American player on the field".  Technically a NA starter is still an "American", just a special one (a subset).  If read this way, you could replace a NA starter with any old (non-vet) DA?!  That would be even more ripe for abuse.

That's why I'm thinking either they would only allow another NA DA to replace the +1 starting NA.  And if you can't, then only a full-blooded(!) / "real" NAT can spell a +1 starting NA, then that would mean the 2022 ratio change would hurt IMP players and increase NAT snap counts!!  Isn't that the opposite of the stated goal of getting more IMP snaps and giving more reasons to keep ageing IMP vets around?

Interestingly, since Darby is a NA (vet IMP), if NA can spell a +1 NA, then surely he can also replace the 8th NAT when there's no +1?  If Darby couldn't, then SB&G is correct and you'd have to take off another IMP starter when Darby comes in.  If your head doesn't hurt yet, add in the fact that we could have made Darby the DNA allowing for the sub not by the '22 ratio rule change but by the '23 DNA rule change.  But for this discussion I'm more curious to find out the sub rules for +1 NAs.

Can someone look at the WPG@OTT chart and tell me who our +1 starting NA was??  I want to go back and see what we did for substitutions for them.