Our special teams are bad

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I understand that but that just proves the Global idea is not a good idea. Teams are forced to find and pay players that are clearly sub-par. 2 on AR at ELC deals or possibly more once they have to re-new and 2 or 3 on PR.

I'm not pro ratio but Global players on the AR have eliminated 2 Canadian roster spots. That's a forced ratio situation and not a sound business decision.

While I'm at it add in the moronic Nationalized American idea. In theory that takes away reps from Canadians.

Put it in your letter to Randy along with your no writhing ref logic!

[Blue In BC]

Put it in your letter to Randy along with your no writhing ref logic!

I didn't make any comments about the ref writhing?

Just took a quick look at some rosters. The Riders and Stamps only have 1 global on their AR. They also only have 1 global on their PR but maintain a 13 player PR.  Elks and Lions only have 1 on AR and only 1 on PR but their PR is currently only 10 players. I suspect many teams are playing fast and loose with roster rules.

I wouldn't be the 1st to suggest Ambosie has been making many unpopular decisions. This year it's the Nationalized Americans.

BTW, you made a thin argument about Global players coming from far far away and not being willing to spend time on PR's.  Have you even looked at where Bomber Globals went to school?

Karamoko went to Laval. Sheahan was from California. Schmitz is from Jacksonville State.

Our imports aren't exactly from next door either. Nichols is from South Florida.  How far is that from Winnipeg?

[theaardvark]

Back in the day, when globals were considered nats, Aussie punters were one of the few spots you'd find taken in that way.  But there was no doubt that Aussie punters had a spot in the CFL (especially mic'd up)

Now that "American Football" is being played more internationally, we see position players coming available, and the GBL initiative removes those players from taking NAT snaps and gives them the ability to develop.  And we have seen some very good players come of it.  The fact that rules changed because we couldn't offer Hansen a paycheck worthy of his play says a lot.

We have some solid GLB players on the roster, and that is a testament to both Walters in acquiring them, and MOS and crew for developing them.  Some other GM's can't be bothered, but the Mafia has obviously decided that it is advantageous to use these spots, and to get good players to put in these spots.  "Free Spot" on the roster, at controlled costs.

[3rdand1.5]

Speaking of bad.....are any teams actually using this overly confusing nationalized, American thingy? It seemed the first couple weeks teams tried to "cheat it" and now it seems everyone realized it wasn't really a cheat code and have stopped doing it, heck I don't think the Bombers have ever even used it?

[Blue In BC]

Back in the day, when globals were considered nats, Aussie punters were one of the few spots you'd find taken in that way.  But there was no doubt that Aussie punters had a spot in the CFL (especially mic'd up)

Now that "American Football" is being played more internationally, we see position players coming available, and the GBL initiative removes those players from taking NAT snaps and gives them the ability to develop.  And we have seen some very good players come of it.  The fact that rules changed because we couldn't offer Hansen a paycheck worthy of his play says a lot.

We have some solid GLB players on the roster, and that is a testament to both Walters in acquiring them, and MOS and crew for developing them.  Some other GM's can't be bothered, but the Mafia has obviously decided that it is advantageous to use these spots, and to get good players to put in these spots.  "Free Spot" on the roster, at controlled costs.

The global initiative directly eliminates 2 roster spots for Canadian players. How you can say otherwise I don't know. I'd argue that the only player the Bombers developed was Hansen. Mauro is only on the AR because Hansen is injured. Karamoko only got time on the AR last year for the same reason.

Machino only got 1 game IIRC when we activated a bunch of PR players at the end of the season.

Sheahan, Schmitz are rookies.

So who are all these solid players anywhere on our roster?

Part of the " pitch " for global players was to expand global interest in the CFL. Is there any information about viewership outside of North America?

Again aside from kickers/punters name a global that actually is a primary starter? In the past 2 global drafts nearly half the selections were kickers or punters.

[Blue In BC]

Speaking of bad.....are any teams actually using this overly confusing nationalized, American thingy? It seemed the first couple weeks teams tried to "cheat it" and now it seems everyone realized it wasn't really a cheat code and have stopped doing it, heck I don't think the Bombers have ever even used it?

It's not really clear which teams are doing what with this new idea. It's counter intuitive in that it would take away reps from an actual Canadian. If they mandate one on each side of the ball in 2024, that potentially would be 23 X 2 = 46 reps. That's nearly the equivalent of reducing the National starters down to 6.

Early in the season posters discussed which of our players could potentially qualify and fit into the intent of this concept. The catch is that aside from DI's all the imports are starters. On the current roster Grant is the only player that might fit the bill if you wanted to slate him in on offence more. He's a great returner but do we really want to add to his load to replace a Canadian receiver if not necessary? That's what BOO is here for if we have in game injuries.

There was uproar that Grant was injured on a running play up the gut.

[The Fresh Prince Of Belair, MB]

On last game's radio broadcast DT said McCrea's longest punt return of the season was 12 yards.
Grant's punt return AVERAGE is 13 yards. 

[blue_gold_84]

On last game's radio broadcast DT said McCrea's longest punt return of the season was 12 yards.
Grant's punt return AVERAGE is 13 yards. 

It's no surprise McCrae is a pretty massive downgrade on returns.

[Blue In BC]

It seems Parker has been practising at " full " since last week and should be available to be activated is the team chooses. I can't find his return stat info ( crappy CFL.CA data ). So if we're going to add him this would be a logical week to do so.

That doesn't mean we have to delete McCrae who could potentially have alternate roles.

Will we see some shuffling of the game day roster? Gauthier will almost certainly be added. I'm still of the opinion that if Parker is added, then Darby could be the odd man out ( 1 game IR ). That's if O'Shea decides he must have Jackson on the game day roster.

So there are a few things that might happen but I'm not even sure we add anybody besides Gauthier.

I haven't seen the IR report for today to see if Alexander is practising with previous non injury related problem. It could be a family issue and he might not be available. That changes the choices potentially. That could bump Darby to safety and allow us to still add Parker?

[TecnoGenius]

Speaking of bad.....are any teams actually using this overly confusing nationalized, American thingy? It seemed the first couple weeks teams tried to "cheat it" and now it seems everyone realized it wasn't really a cheat code and have stopped doing it, heck I don't think the Bombers have ever even used it?

I haven't seen proof yet that a team has actually used the rule on-field in-game.  They may have, it's very hard to tell who's on the field each play, especially on D, where more teams are opting to designate a DNA.

So far the tell that a team may be trying to use the rule is when they roster a known star behind a weaker player.  Even TSN mentioned that, one game many weeks back.

And this leads me to finally see with clarity the fundamental problem with the new DNA rules: it is not the intended ageing vet IMPs that are being made the DNA, it's often the star players who would normally start (or returners, see below).  This has three effects:

1) The guy who starts in the DNA's place will often be a developing ELC guy;
2) This "spoils" the product for the fans because then the star DNA guy doesn't get any player-introductions (on-field or on TSN), the ELC guy does;
3) This confuses fans who don't know anything about this DNA nonsense;

The stated idea of prolonging ageing vet careers has not materialized.  It really hasn't done anything for them.  At least it doesn't seem to be negative for them.  So it has basically failed at its stated goal.

The other common case (that we used to use with Grant) is making your star returner the DNA.  This too does nothing for ageing vets.  It does let you bring your star IMP returner in in place of a NAT WR for 23 snaps though.  This could be useful in our Grant case.  I have no idea if we actually pulled Woli/Demski/Brady for the odd Grant play, though.  My hunch is we didn't, and instead spelled Bailey or Schoen, as we always could in the past.

With MOS's love for Jackson though, perhaps we could see the Grant DNA idea actually being used.  If it's a Grant sweep play and we want Jackson in for blocking, we could pull Demski (the weakest blocker because of weight?) or Woli, for Grant, and pull Schoen or Bailey for Jackson.  Basically whoever can block the most yet still represent a threat on the field would be ideal here.  But it's a complicated scenario that in the end doesn't buy us much, because all of our guys are so good.

If we pay close attention in the upcoming MTL game, we could possibly find out if MTL is using their DNAs.  They are one of the few teams to designate both O and D DNAs.  In the recent games, Ellis is the D DNA (DE) with 2 NAT MLBs the DNSs.  Worthy is the O DNA (returner/WR) with a whole whack of SB/FB DNSs.  I could see reasons why you'd use both of those options in-game.  So if either comes in during the game, all we have to do is figure out who left.

In week 1 I thought for sure it would be C.Jones gaming this system so he could get max IMPs on field.  But even he seems to have soured on the idea, or maybe his cranium can't handle the permutations.

I have a possible, simple, solution to the "not the real starter" problem: allow the DNA to be the starter.  Then for 23 snaps you can put any other IMP (i.e. a normal DI) in for any DNS NAT.  Easy peasy.  This solves my points #1-#3.  And it changes exactly nothing in terms of who gets more/less reps.

But that does zero to address the failure of the main goal of making ageing IMPs more valuable... How about making it so DNAs can only come in for DNSs and only for those 23 snaps?  They'd basically be stripped of their DI status.  Right now it's ridiculous because the DNA can actually play 100% of snaps: 23 for a DNS, and the rest for any other IMP!  So in most cases when you make the DNA your star player he's in the whole game, and it's the "placeholder" ELC IMP that is out half the game.  You'd also have to force the teams to dress a DNA on both sides, or teams/GMs would just ignore the rule.

Limiting the DNA to only 23 snaps and only for DNSs may actually make the ageing can't-do-every-down IMPs like say Arceneaux or Darvin Adams or Ian Wild or Quick Nick or Lemon (or in the future Biggie and Jeffcoat) more valuable and long-lived as intended.  But because of the reduced snaps, and the loss of two DI spots, you may have to increase roster size.  But it certainly would get IMPs on the field more (23 snaps per side) at the expense of NATs, which was also an unstated goal.

Can anyone else think of a way to "fix" the rules to achieve the stated goals?

Put it in your letter to Randy along with your no writhing ref logic!

Hey, Cody School Of Writhing(tm) is my thing! 

[TecnoGenius]

It seems Parker has been practising at " full " since last week and should be available to be activated is the team chooses. I can't find his return stat info ( crappy CFL.CA data ). So if we're going to add him this would be a logical week to do so.

I think you Parker vs McCrae guys are in for a bit of disappointment.  The few times we've seen Parker return kicks he's only marginally better than McCrae.  McCrae has shown the ability to be slippery (mostly on O).  I've never seen Parker be slippery.  I would expect at best a couple more yards from Parker, but I don't see him dancing around E/W getting the edge on anyone.

We almost always put the IR guy back in for the "replacement" and thus Parker should get his job back from Holm.  But Holm has been playing better than anyone could have hoped... so it's a bit tougher.  But we do what we do (anyone remember ADS?), and Holm isn't that good (think Alford good), so ya we probably put Parker back at HB, and he can take over or alternate or dual-return with McCrae for returns.  But that would almost certainly mean Holm is sent to PR/IR.  (This is all assuming BA37 is playing.)

If BA37 is IR, then we can avoid the dilemma for now and dress both Holm and Parker.  The big question will be which gets FS vs HB...

I also think we'd be comfortable with Hallett The Uninjured at FS if the ratio dictates, until BA37 returns.  This would finally let us get a DI on the DL.

[Blue In BC]

We could / should still add a DL to spell our starters from burning out. Many ways to do that whether Alexander plays or not.

[Jesse]

I think you Parker vs McCrae guys are in for a bit of disappointment.  The few times we've seen Parker return kicks he's only marginally better than McCrae. 

I'm not expecting Parker to go in and start getting us TDs like Grant.

I'm expecting him to not bobble the ball every time he touches it.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I'm not expecting Parker to go in and start getting us TDs like Grant.

I'm expecting him to not bobble the ball every time he touches it.

If we do get Parker on the roster he's a pretty good returner! I think he'll surprise.

[Stats Junkie]

Monday on the Coach's Show on CJOB a caller asked Mike O'Shea about the coverage teams. O'Shea acknowledged that the coverage teams have been below standard - he even threw out some stats about where the Bombers rank.

Coach O'Shea expanded further by stating that the Blue Bombers have been trying new coverage schemes this season vs. the schemes used (successfully) for the past few season. He says they are not there yet, with some kinks to iron out still - but they are close.


PFF had Jamieson Sheahan as their highest rated K/P for week 11  . PFF analyses each play and assigns a grade based on how well they think the player executed the play - raw stats don't factor in per se. I'm with the majority of people who are surprised by some of their rankings and this one is a head scratcher.