Blue Bombers add three to roster - April 2, 2024

[ModAdmin]

Blue Bombers add three to roster - April 2, 2024

WINNIPEG, MB., April 2, 2024 - The Winnipeg Blue Bombers today announce the club has signed three Americans -- offensive lineman Khalil Keith, linebacker Juan Lua and defensive back Montrae Braswell.

Keith (6-5, 314; Baylor; born: September 12, 1998, in Alpine, AL) joins the Blue Bombers after playing two games in 2023 with the Philadelphia Stars of the USFL and following a mini-camp look by the New York Giants last year. Keith played in 47 games during his college days at Baylor (2017-22) with 20 of them starts, seeing action at both left guard and right tackle.

Lua (6-0, 190; Massachusetts; born: August 15, 2001 in  Indio, CA) played safety with the Minutemen last year, registering 23 tackles, two interceptions and seven pass breakups in 12 games. He began his collegiate career at College of the Desert in 2019 and then transferred to Saddleback College in 2021 and then to UMass in 2022.

Braswell (6-0, 190, Missouri State; born: December 6, 1998 in Avon Park, FL) was a standout cornerback and kick returner for Missouri State. In 29 career games he recorded six interceptions, 25 passes defensed, two forced fumbles and 125 tackles, while as a returner he averaged 30.0 yards per return in three seasons, including touchdowns of 100, 96 and 98 yards. He signed with Kansas City following the 2023 NFL Draft, and later spent brief time with the Seahawks during training camp last season.

[Blueforlife]

Braswell sounds like one to watch

[kkc60]

Braswell looks very interesting, Lua looks like a halfback and Keith should bring some more nice competition for the RT position

[theaardvark]

How many of these signings will actually attend training camp will be interesting to see.  There are a lot of interesting prospects, for sure.  How many will survive rookie camp or even the first few weeks, and how many will end up having both enough interest in the CFL and enough interest from our staff to stick on the PR will say a lot for the coming seasons. 

Our recruiting has been a huge strength of the team, narrowly followed by our coaches ability to refine diamonds in the rough.  Can you imagine if we were allowed to keep all our developed players, even for one more year.

Darned SMS.

Maybe its time to expand the "cheating" zone a little more.  Instead of a hard cap at $300k over, double it.  Up to $200k, dollar match penalty, up to $400k, double match.  $600k, triple.  Send those funds to the "poorer" teams, as long as they spend to within 5% of the cap.  Maybe even link it to draft picks... so teams that trade away draft picks give up some of their shared SMS.  Make the draft more important and draft picks even more valuable.

[TecnoGenius]

Maybe its time to expand the "cheating" zone a little more.  Instead of a hard cap at $300k over, double it.  Up to $200k, dollar match penalty, up to $400k, double match.  $600k, triple.  Send those funds to the "poorer" teams, as long as they spend to within 5% of the cap.  Maybe even link it to draft picks... so teams that trade away draft picks give up some of their shared SMS.  Make the draft more important and draft picks even more valuable.

As much as I'd love it as it would help mostly WPG, it probably wouldn't be good for the league.  Even if the money goes to poorer teams, if it doesn't raise their SMS also, it doesn't help to make their teams better, just their rich owners lose less money.

I think our other ideas, about tying extra-SMS space to other goals of the league/CFLPA, are the real winning possibilities.  Like the graduated 10% per-year-above-3-years-with-same-team outside-the-SMS bonus money.  Better same-team player retention, better aging-vet protection (a lot of their $ could be outside the SMS).  But that's for another thread...

[theaardvark]

As much as I'd love it as it would help mostly WPG, it probably wouldn't be good for the league.  Even if the money goes to poorer teams, if it doesn't raise their SMS also, it doesn't help to make their teams better, just their rich owners lose less money.

I think our other ideas, about tying extra-SMS space to other goals of the league/CFLPA, are the real winning possibilities.  Like the graduated 10% per-year-above-3-years-with-same-team outside-the-SMS bonus money.  Better same-team player retention, better aging-vet protection (a lot of their $ could be outside the SMS).  But that's for another thread...

Yes, player retention outside the $SMS that is capped at an ampount per player and per team is the absolute best scenario, as well as an RFA offer sheet match option for players coming off ELC's.  A little more paperwork, but a lot better continuity.  We might have kept players like Houston if that was in place.
 

[Blue In BC]

Yes, player retention outside the $SMS that is capped at an ampount per player and per team is the absolute best scenario, as well as an RFA offer sheet match option for players coming off ELC's.  A little more paperwork, but a lot better continuity.  We might have kept players like Houston if that was in place.
 

I disagree. The SMS could be $10M and we'd still be saying the same thing. You can't find bend around the rules to circumvent the SMS. Whether that is a " franchise player" designation or some other version of creating exceptions to the normal SMS, makes no sense.

A team that is very cash rich can still use that to their advantage. That's the opposite of an SMS trying to create an equal playing field.

[TecnoGenius]

A team that is very cash rich can still use that to their advantage. That's the opposite of an SMS trying to create an equal playing field.

I think the teams cry "poor" but if they have extra SMS or special retention carve-outs I can guarantee they'd all spend to the limit.  ("Receivership"-style teams like MTL a few years ago excluded.)

And remember, the poor teams get the transfer payments from the rich teams as of a couple of seasons ago.

No current team would balk at or cry if we instituted an outside-the-SMS retention bonus scheme that cost them another $250k say.

Many players would still be here if we had such a thing I envisioned.  Add Jeffcoat to that list.  We could pay him ELC in the SMS and give him a $30k non-SMS retention bonus for 6-3=3 years above 3 years @ $10k each.  Or maybe make it $15k x3 = $45k would sound a bit juicier.  They wouldn't automatically earn it, nor would it have to be the max $ allowed, it would just be an option teams could use/spend to retain good, fan-favorite, but aging/IR-prone, talent.

And it only applies to same-team players (not just any vets, and especially not team-hopping Muambas).

What that would do is incentivize vet longevity (a stated CFLPA goal), and boost retention (i.e. reduce churn, another stated goal) by give retaining-teams an unfair advantage over steal-away teams (allowing us to keep more players after GC appearances).  In concrete terms, such a thing would possibly have allowed us, this FA, to keep Jeffcoat, Gray, Bailey.  And allow nice bonuses for guys like Biggie if we wanted to do the players a solid.  Wouldn't have helped with Houston or Walker as they each have only 3 years with us.

Just a thought... I still haven't seen a better answer, and none of the things the CFL has come up with to date have done squat for either longevity nor same-team retention.

I would also like to see the ability to put starters/stars on the PR (or a brand new roster) where they can earn their negotiated salary while on it, and be protected from sniping.  It's really lame teams have to fake stuff sometimes to hide those guys on the IR(s).  I envision kind of like a "we like you but this new TC guy might be better so we want to test drive him for 5 weeks but we need you here as the backup (but not dressed) in case this rookie is a dud".  There would be no SMS relief while the player is on it.

[Blue In BC]

I think the teams cry "poor" but if they have extra SMS or special retention carve-outs I can guarantee they'd all spend to the limit.  ("Receivership"-style teams like MTL a few years ago excluded.)

And remember, the poor teams get the transfer payments from the rich teams as of a couple of seasons ago.

No current team would balk at or cry if we instituted an outside-the-SMS retention bonus scheme that cost them another $250k say.

Many players would still be here if we had such a thing I envisioned.  Add Jeffcoat to that list.  We could pay him ELC in the SMS and give him a $30k non-SMS retention bonus for 6-3=3 years above 3 years @ $10k each.  Or maybe make it $15k x3 = $45k would sound a bit juicier.  They wouldn't automatically earn it, nor would it have to be the max $ allowed, it would just be an option teams could use/spend to retain good, fan-favorite, but aging/IR-prone, talent.

And it only applies to same-team players (not just any vets, and especially not team-hopping Muambas).

What that would do is incentivize vet longevity (a stated CFLPA goal), and boost retention (i.e. reduce churn, another stated goal) by give retaining-teams an unfair advantage over steal-away teams (allowing us to keep more players after GC appearances).  In concrete terms, such a thing would possibly have allowed us, this FA, to keep Jeffcoat, Gray, Bailey.  And allow nice bonuses for guys like Biggie if we wanted to do the players a solid.  Wouldn't have helped with Houston or Walker as they each have only 3 years with us.

Just a thought... I still haven't seen a better answer, and none of the things the CFL has come up with to date have done squat for either longevity nor same-team retention.

I would also like to see the ability to put starters/stars on the PR (or a brand new roster) where they can earn their negotiated salary while on it, and be protected from sniping.  It's really lame teams have to fake stuff sometimes to hide those guys on the IR(s).  I envision kind of like a "we like you but this new TC guy might be better so we want to test drive him for 5 weeks but we need you here as the backup (but not dressed) in case this rookie is a dud".  There would be no SMS relief while the player is on it.

I think it's a silly argument and a version of one you always promote. Some work around. The total is the total. If you save some SMS / use this extra differently, then every team has that advantage.

Not every veteran changes teams but some high cost players will still leave.

You're examples:

Jeffcoat wasn't picked up by any other team. Injury history and age came into play as well as SMS.

Gray essentially retired

Bailey left for a chance of a bigger role as well as money. He wasn't going to be a # 1 to # 3 target in Winnipeg because of our starters.

EDIT: If we're going to " new " ways to spend more then pick one or more of the following:

1. Increase the SMS
2. Increase the roster size ( 4 ) would be my suggestion. 2 Canadians and 2 imports.
3. Add some sort of restricted free agency via draft choices or neg list based on years spent with a given team and nationality.

Noting that every professional sports team loses veteran players regardless of how high their SMS is set. IIRC, the NFL has a $255M usd cap and they are making the same choices about players that are aging, have injury history or price themselves off a given roster.

Rosters are dynamic everywhere.

[theaardvark]

The key to these propositions is not that they increase the $SMS, just increasing the $SMS would not change player retention at all, and it would just get spent and raise salaries across the board.

Player retention non-$SMS budget serves the exact same purpose as RFA in the NHL, or the max contract clause in the NBA.  It gives teams the ability to retain players by having an advantage in bidding for them. 

All teams would have the same outside the $SMS budget, the amount any team can offer one player would be limited to a % of the base contract, it would be considered a "Bonus" from a tax / game cheque perspective, and there would be a maximum total they can use.

This is, in effect, an $SMS increase, but with an intention to allow teams/players to incentivize loyalty.  It would not stop a team from vastly overpaying to "buy"  a player from another team, but it would allow an "all things equal" situation to sway to the player staying.

They have already started in this direction, allowing multiyear contract renewals to include guaranteed money in the subsequent year.. this just takes that a little further, without the risk of guaranteeing money to a player that might get injured or even retire.

[Blue In BC]

The key to these propositions is not that they increase the $SMS, just increasing the $SMS would not change player retention at all, and it would just get spent and raise salaries across the board.

Player retention non-$SMS budget serves the exact same purpose as RFA in the NHL, or the max contract clause in the NBA.  It gives teams the ability to retain players by having an advantage in bidding for them. 

All teams would have the same outside the $SMS budget, the amount any team can offer one player would be limited to a % of the base contract, it would be considered a "Bonus" from a tax / game cheque perspective, and there would be a maximum total they can use.

This is, in effect, an $SMS increase, but with an intention to allow teams/players to incentivize loyalty.  It would not stop a team from vastly overpaying to "buy"  a player from another team, but it would allow an "all things equal" situation to sway to the player staying.

They have already started in this direction, allowing multiyear contract renewals to include guaranteed money in the subsequent year.. this just takes that a little further, without the risk of guaranteeing money to a player that might get injured or even retire.

Nope, nope and nope. Even a player with guaranteed money can be traded to another team willing to accept that guarantee.

Want player retention? Eliminate NFL option and 1 year contracts for veterans. Both made player retention more difficult. We understand why players want that but it's also the reason we so many potential free agents each off season. Going into 2024 there were 300 more or less potential free agents.

Somebody can do a count ( if they want ) of how many of those were veterans on 1 year deals and / or how many changed teams.

These concepts work against each other. The benefits of either can be debated.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I think the teams cry "poor" but if they have extra SMS or special retention carve-outs I can guarantee they'd all spend to the limit.  ("Receivership"-style teams like MTL a few years ago excluded.)

And remember, the poor teams get the transfer payments from the rich teams as of a couple of seasons ago.

No current team would balk at or cry if we instituted an outside-the-SMS retention bonus scheme that cost them another $250k say.

Many players would still be here if we had such a thing I envisioned.  Add Jeffcoat to that list.  We could pay him ELC in the SMS and give him a $30k non-SMS retention bonus for 6-3=3 years above 3 years @ $10k each.  Or maybe make it $15k x3 = $45k would sound a bit juicier.  They wouldn't automatically earn it, nor would it have to be the max $ allowed, it would just be an option teams could use/spend to retain good, fan-favorite, but aging/IR-prone, talent.

And it only applies to same-team players (not just any vets, and especially not team-hopping Muambas).

What that would do is incentivize vet longevity (a stated CFLPA goal), and boost retention (i.e. reduce churn, another stated goal) by give retaining-teams an unfair advantage over steal-away teams (allowing us to keep more players after GC appearances).  In concrete terms, such a thing would possibly have allowed us, this FA, to keep Jeffcoat, Gray, Bailey.  And allow nice bonuses for guys like Biggie if we wanted to do the players a solid.  Wouldn't have helped with Houston or Walker as they each have only 3 years with us.

Just a thought... I still haven't seen a better answer, and none of the things the CFL has come up with to date have done squat for either longevity nor same-team retention.

I would also like to see the ability to put starters/stars on the PR (or a brand new roster) where they can earn their negotiated salary while on it, and be protected from sniping.  It's really lame teams have to fake stuff sometimes to hide those guys on the IR(s).  I envision kind of like a "we like you but this new TC guy might be better so we want to test drive him for 5 weeks but we need you here as the backup (but not dressed) in case this rookie is a dud".  There would be no SMS relief while the player is on it.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the only teams currently making a profit are the Bombers and the Riders, so this wouldn't be a good time to make adjustments to the salary cap rules.  Maybe if some of the recent initiatives into gambling and expanded broadcasting rights pay future dividends the CFL will finally attain some level of stability and can stop worrying about teams folding.  Wouldn't that be a nice turn of events.

[Blue In BC]

Roster is filling out but we've also got mini camps at the end of the month. I'd guess we'll still be adding another 12 rookies or so before TC. The question is how many of the rookies now signed get released before TC or decide to not show up. There are always a few of those in each city.

Then there are the 10 Canadian draft choices and 2 global draft choices to be made.

A few rookies currently signed sound like good candidates and there are some roster openings.

I don't know if a guy like Braswell will make the roster. However a DB that can return and be on the AR as a DI saves a DI spot. That's if he's good enough to fill both roles above average.

That said, I'm still hoping we get Grant back but that's a TBD at the moment. Whether we have a specific player as a returner or one that is a back up at DB or receiver is just a question and / or possibility.

 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Roster is filling out but we've also got mini camps at the end of the month. I'd guess we'll still be adding another 12 rookies or so before TC. The question is how many of the rookies now signed get released before TC or decide to not show up. There are always a few of those in each city.

Then there are the 10 Canadian draft choices and 2 global draft choices to be made.

A few rookies currently signed sound like good candidates and there are some roster openings.

I don't know if a guy like Braswell will make the roster. However a DB that can return and be on the AR as a DI saves a DI spot. That's if he's good enough to fill both roles above average.

That said, I'm still hoping we get Grant back but that's a TBD at the moment. Whether we have a specific player as a returner or one that is a back up at DB or receiver is just a question and / or possibility.

 

I think Walters really intended to re-sign Grant, but this has gone on far too long to feel comfortable with, they need to get this done pronto. Won't be good if they have to rely on a mediocre returner, it puts them in a field position disadvantage any time the other team has a better returner.  Saw that enough last season.

[kkc60]

I think Walters really intended to re-sign Grant, but this has gone on far too long to feel comfortable with, they need to get this done pronto. Won't be good if they have to rely on a mediocre returner, it puts them in a field position disadvantage any time the other team has a better returner.  Saw that enough last season.

Well I would hope better guys have been brought in this time around for the KR/PR role. A few guys look like they could be good. Last season the Bombers were caught with absolutely no backup plan for Grant. This year that does not appear to be the case

[theaardvark]

Nope, nope and nope. Even a player with guaranteed money can be traded to another team willing to accept that guarantee.

Want player retention? Eliminate NFL option and 1 year contracts for veterans. Both made player retention more difficult. We understand why players want that but it's also the reason we so many potential free agents each off season. Going into 2024 there were 300 more or less potential free agents.

Somebody can do a count ( if they want ) of how many of those were veterans on 1 year deals and / or how many changed teams.

These concepts work against each other. The benefits of either can be debated.

The problem with eliminating 1 year vet deals and the NFL window is you no longer have players, you have hostages.

The measures we support create a positive engagement with the players, and make them happier to commit to a team.

Creating a positive environment for re-signing is better than enforcing rules that require a player to play someplace he may not want to play.

As to trading a player with guaranteed money, of course you can.  But that money gets paid out by someone if the player retires or is long term injured.  And it is in the $SMS cap for that year.

[Blue In BC]

The problem with eliminating 1 year vet deals and the NFL window is you no longer have players, you have hostages.

The measures we support create a positive engagement with the players, and make them happier to commit to a team.

Creating a positive environment for re-signing is better than enforcing rules that require a player to play someplace he may not want to play.

As to trading a player with guaranteed money, of course you can.  But that money gets paid out by someone if the player retires or is long term injured.  And it is in the $SMS cap for that year.

 The CFL survived long before NFL option or 1 year deals. You know, back when player movement was less frequent.

I'm all for creating a positive environment but the tide has shifted too far towards the players to prevent roster turnover.

Long term injuries are covered by the 6 game IR rule about the SMS. There is an issue with the advance money when or if a player is injured at some point. There should be a pro rated calculation that includes the bonus being exempt for the games missed.

It's interesting that in other leagues, players sign much longer contracts.

[TecnoGenius]

You're examples:

Jeffcoat wasn't picked up by any other team. Injury history and age came into play as well as SMS.

Gray essentially retired

Bailey left for a chance of a bigger role as well as money. He wasn't going to be a # 1 to # 3 target in Winnipeg because of our starters.

Then you're missing the point.  The retention idea I propose isn't just keeping players from jumping teams, it's also about keeping aging vets or potential retirees in the CFL vs the couch.

Jeffcoat is the perfect example!  We only had ELC left, and KW basically stated any non-re-signed vet could probably get their job back if they'd take ELC.  Jeffcoat won't play for ELC (too proud, I don't blame him).  KW can't spend more than ELC.  Thus Jeffcoat walks and hits the couch.

Now, we add in the TecnoGenius vet team-retention plan and we now can offer Jeffcoat 90+45=$135 to stay, and KW only takes a $90 SMS hit (tweak the actual numbers as you see fit, the idea can work with arbitrary (but chosen by consensus) numbers for each aspect).  Does Jeffcoat stay 1 more year for $135?  Probably?  Remember, WFC doesn't care at all about the extra $45k, it's chump change, as long as it's outside the SMS.

Same for Gray.  In fact, I've often suggested a special extra-SMS thing for NAT hoggies... far too many retire way too young (Goosen, Gray, Spooner, etc).  In a league that has a horrible time filling out decent OLs, we really should do better at keeping the good/decent ones!!  Gray is certainly good enough to start somewhere, even if not here.  He may have chosen retirement to save his body when he saw he wasn't going to get the big Desjar payday.

Always keep in mind what the stated goals of the CFL & CFLPA are regarding vets, especially IMP vets; and player churn, which Ambrosie has directly spoken to in many TSN interviews.  My ideas directly address the stated goals.  Let's face it, what the league has done so far (DNA/DNS/NA) has been completely useless, if not totally counter-productive...

3. Add some sort of restricted free agency via draft choices or neg list based on years spent with a given team and nationality.

I'd love to hear more about your idea.  I could be onboard with something like that too.  Spell out how it would work.

[TecnoGenius]

The key to these propositions is not that they increase the $SMS, just increasing the $SMS would not change player retention at all, and it would just get spent and raise salaries across the board.

Aards 100% gets it.  100% right on all points.

Hey Aards, did you sell the pet mart?  I was in there today and sounds like it's some other dude now?  They raised the prices on my reptile lights!!   

[TecnoGenius]

I think Walters really intended to re-sign Grant, but this has gone on far too long to feel comfortable with, they need to get this done pronto.

In my rewatch of 2023 I'm noticing Grant seemed to be tailing off a bit, especially after he returned from injury.  He didn't do much in the post-season, and teams seemed to be respecting him less (gunning more vs containing).  (But he did have the best return ever vs SSK in that one game.)

Returners can fall off the cliff fast.  Alford is mostly useless now.  Lucky isn't even put back there anymore.  Those were the top 3 guys since 2019.  Now it's being taken over by the newest kids like Leake.

Grant is being hit with Jeffcoat syndrome... ego demands more money yet IR and possible performance issues hamstring KW offers.

Maybe we're waiting for camp to see if we have the next Grant?  If not, then up the $ a bit to get Grant.  Clearly no other team is biting.  If we have to go over SMS a bit, why not?  Just make sure it's 1-year and heavily performance-based.  Give him $5k every K/P R-TD.  Pull an Adarius Bowman if he produces nothing in week 1-6.

... it could also be Miller asserting his desires into the mix.  Maybe he's not sold on Grant as the answer...

[TecnoGenius]

The CFL survived long before NFL option or 1 year deals. You know, back when player movement was less frequent.

I'm all for creating a positive environment but the tide has shifted too far towards the players to prevent roster turnover.

I think the NFL opportunities make the GM job (and our fan speculation) so much more interesting, and challenging.  It especially impacts the NAT draft.  It's such a funny situation: we want to draft the best players, but not too good.

Similarly with scouting: find the overlooked gems, but make sure they have some flaw that precludes them from the NFL.  That usually means height (for most positions).  That's almost certainly why we still have Holm, and maybe even Schoen.

When you watch a ton of player interviews, like on bb.com, you fast realize every single one has the NFL dream, and most are playing in the CFL only to get to the NFL.  It's only once they are here a couple/few years they grow to love the CFL and want to stay when the NFL dream is dead.  If you take away the NFL dream, or even restrict it, from the new/young guys, a majority probably wouldn't even bother ever coming to Canada.

[Blue In BC]

Then you're missing the point.  The retention idea I propose isn't just keeping players from jumping teams, it's also about keeping aging vets or potential retirees in the CFL vs the couch.

Jeffcoat is the perfect example!  We only had ELC left, and KW basically stated any non-re-signed vet could probably get their job back if they'd take ELC.  Jeffcoat won't play for ELC (too proud, I don't blame him).  KW can't spend more than ELC.  Thus Jeffcoat walks and hits the couch.

Now, we add in the TecnoGenius vet team-retention plan and we now can offer Jeffcoat 90+45=$135 to stay, and KW only takes a $90 SMS hit (tweak the actual numbers as you see fit, the idea can work with arbitrary (but chosen by consensus) numbers for each aspect).  Does Jeffcoat stay 1 more year for $135?  Probably?  Remember, WFC doesn't care at all about the extra $45k, it's chump change, as long as it's outside the SMS.

Same for Gray.  In fact, I've often suggested a special extra-SMS thing for NAT hoggies... far too many retire way too young (Goosen, Gray, Spooner, etc).  In a league that has a horrible time filling out decent OLs, we really should do better at keeping the good/decent ones!!  Gray is certainly good enough to start somewhere, even if not here.  He may have chosen retirement to save his body when he saw he wasn't going to get the big Desjar payday.

Always keep in mind what the stated goals of the CFL & CFLPA are regarding vets, especially IMP vets; and player churn, which Ambrosie has directly spoken to in many TSN interviews.  My ideas directly address the stated goals.  Let's face it, what the league has done so far (DNA/DNS/NA) has been completely useless, if not totally counter-productive...

I'd love to hear more about your idea.  I could be onboard with something like that too.  Spell out how it would work.

I'm not missing anything. At some point every veteran is going to be replaced. SMS is only part of the reason. By my count we said goodbye to 23 players that were on the AR or PR. Some we wanted to keep and some we didn't.  Of that group only 8 are with another team.

Let's take Jefferson again. I'm not certain we would have kept him on the AR even if he accepted an ELC type deal. It was time to move on. Every dollar we give to one player is a dollar we can't give to another. SMS and profitability are linked issues.

The question is at what point does the team draw a line on a player and their succession plan. Any player you keep even on the PR takes away a spot for another player that might evolve into a starter.

It's part of the curve of a football career. You may start on the PR or get cut before you become a starter and then at some point another player beats you out of your spot. SMS is only one factor.

[theaardvark]

The CFL survived long before NFL option or 1 year deals. You know, back when player movement was less frequent.

I'm all for creating a positive environment but the tide has shifted too far towards the players to prevent roster turnover.

Long term injuries are covered by the 6 game IR rule about the SMS. There is an issue with the advance money when or if a player is injured at some point. There should be a pro rated calculation that includes the bonus being exempt for the games missed.

It's interesting that in other leagues, players sign much longer contracts.

Other leagues all have *GUARANTEED CONTRACTS".  So it is in the players best interest to dign as long a deal as they can get.  CFL is a league where you can sign a $300k contract, and be dumped after TC, never collecting dollar one.  And players are going to bet on themselves getting a raise whenever they sign a new deal.  Teams will lock them in on as long a term contract as possible at the best deal possible (for the team), knowing they can cut them loose at any moment.

Presently, guaranteed money is not covered by 6 game.  Neither are signing bonuses.  Every time a team gives a player either, they are rolling the dice, hoping they stay healthy and talented.  Making both 6 game eligible prorated would change a lot of the way contracts are written, for sure.  You can bet on a player staying talented, but healthy is something you can't always bet on.



. 

[theaardvark]

Aards 100% gets it.  100% right on all points.

Hey Aards, did you sell the pet mart?  I was in there today and sounds like it's some other dude now?  They raised the prices on my reptile lights!!   

Thrive Pet Food Market still has the same dude running it, and that's me... as to prices, that's from the manufacturer, I wish I could control that.  All in all, or prices have been a lot more stable than most retail businesses.

Thanks for agreeing with my vison for $SMS.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I'm not missing anything. At some point every veteran is going to be replaced. SMS is only part of the reason. By my count we said goodbye to 23 players that were on the AR or PR. Some we wanted to keep and some we didn't.  Of that group only 8 are with another team.

Let's take Jefferson again. I'm not certain we would have kept him on the AR even if he accepted an ELC type deal. It was time to move on. Every dollar we give to one player is a dollar we can't give to another. SMS and profitability are linked issues.

The question is at what point does the team draw a line on a player and their succession plan. Any player you keep even on the PR takes away a spot for another player that might evolve into a starter.

It's part of the curve of a football career. You may start on the PR or get cut before you become a starter and then at some point another player beats you out of your spot. SMS is only one factor.

I'm going to disagree wholeheartedly with your stance, the loss of players such as Jeffcoat, Bailey, Ricky Walker and Gray is due more to salary mismanagement and poor communication practices, rather than a carefully calculated succession plan.  Unless you count "blank slates", as legitimate replacements for allstar level veteran players that served the team well for multiple seasons who did everything asked of them. Does not sound like a logical succession plan to me, sounds more like a hope and a prayer plan based on previous luck.

The salary mismanagement stems from Walters getting in over his head in the receiver dept. by initially re-signing Lawler at an extensive price after Jones blew away the salary cap for receivers, only Walters followed him into the unscripted territory of fiscal mismanagement. The situation was compounded when he had to pay Schoen a similar salary to what he offered Lawler, exceeding the budget for receivers to the point they couldn't afford to bring back a journeyman like Bailey even at a fair salary.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul is never good accounting practice.

As Harris pointed out in his podcast interview, the Bombers have had a "fail to communicate properly" problem reaching back multiple years now which needs to be rectified as it will eventually tarnish their legacy.

Love Walters to pieces and credit him equally along with O'Shea for 4 great years but that doesn't excuse making basic errors in budget and player management whether that falls on him or others within the organization. 

[ModAdmin]

I'm going to disagree wholeheartedly with your stance, the loss of players such as Jeffcoat, Bailey, Ricky Walker and Gray is due more to salary mismanagement and poor communication practices, rather than a carefully calculated succession plan.  Unless you count "blank slates", as legitimate replacements for allstar level veteran players that served the team well for multiple seasons who did everything asked of them. Does not sound like a logical succession plan to me, sounds more like a hope and a prayer plan based on previous luck.

The salary mismanagement stems from Walters getting in over his head in the receiver dept. by initially re-signing Lawler at an extensive price after Jones blew away the salary cap for receivers, only Walters followed him into the unscripted territory of fiscal mismanagement. The situation was compounded when he had to pay Schoen a similar salary to what he offered Lawler, exceeding the budget for receivers to the point they couldn't afford to bring back a journeyman like Bailey even at a fair salary.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul is never good accounting practice.

As Harris pointed out in his podcast interview, the Bombers have had a "fail to communicate properly" problem reaching back multiple years now which needs to be rectified as it will eventually tarnish their legacy.

Love Walters to pieces and credit him equally along with O'Shea for 4 great years but that doesn't excuse making basic errors in budget and player management whether that falls on him or others within the organization. 

I would take the bolded statement above with a grain of salt until I hear the other side of the story.  Long term players who have been released while feeling they still have something in the tank are bound to feel a bit disrespected and undervalued.  It's hard to imagine the team would not clearly communicate what they can afford to players in this category.

[Blue In BC]

I'm going to disagree wholeheartedly with your stance, the loss of players such as Jeffcoat, Bailey, Ricky Walker and Gray is due more to salary mismanagement and poor communication practices, rather than a carefully calculated succession plan.  Unless you count "blank slates", as legitimate replacements for allstar level veteran players that served the team well for multiple seasons who did everything asked of them. Does not sound like a logical succession plan to me, sounds more like a hope and a prayer plan based on previous luck.

The salary mismanagement stems from Walters getting in over his head in the receiver dept. by initially re-signing Lawler at an extensive price after Jones blew away the salary cap for receivers, only Walters followed him into the unscripted territory of fiscal mismanagement. The situation was compounded when he had to pay Schoen a similar salary to what he offered Lawler, exceeding the budget for receivers to the point they couldn't afford to bring back a journeyman like Bailey even at a fair salary.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul is never good accounting practice.

As Harris pointed out in his podcast interview, the Bombers have had a "fail to communicate properly" problem reaching back multiple years now which needs to be rectified as it will eventually tarnish their legacy.

Love Walters to pieces and credit him equally along with O'Shea for 4 great years but that doesn't excuse making basic errors in budget and player management whether that falls on him or others within the organization. 

Three of the players you list are not currently expected to play in 2024.

Bombers have 2 up and coming Canadian OL to replace Gray. Both may be better than Gray who had many posters thinking that even in 2023.

Jeffcoat replacements include a long list of potential candidates to be proven but as I said, Jeffcoat is not expected to play in 2024.

The Bailey situation as been covered already. He wanted an opportunity to play more and to earn more. We have a dozen potential candidates to replace him.

Arguing any of these losses is due to salary mismanagement would be a hard one to make.

Would you have been willing to not re-sign Schoen or Oliveria in order to have kept those on your list? Wouldn't the argument then revert to the same for not being able to retain those players.

Can't have it both ways. Veteran players want more to re-sign. Both those players signed for less than offered elsewhere. Free agency creates a bidding war across the league for top players.  Decisions are made every season. Was it a good decision to allow Harris to leave 2 years ago and not make Oliveria the starter, allowing SMS to be spent elsewhere? Noting that not every decision works out the way hoped.

You call that mismanagement? You better take another look at the players we were able to re-sign to new deals. You might also take into account the Bombers have been to 4 consecutive Grey Cups winning 2.

Winning is the defining criteria.

[Pete]

I have to agree, winning is the main criteria as to whether a team is mismanaged (see Edm for example)
We may not agree with some of the decisions, I for one feel we are overinvested in the receiver position at the expense of our defense. But having the best offence in the league may win games for us despite that.
Like Ive mentioned earlier the only management actions I'd like to see is more proactively signing/extending  key players which would also help in succession planning.
On the failure to communicate, when a player doesn't like what he hearing it's not necessarily poor communication.

[theaardvark]

Salary mismanagement?

Signing the top WR in the league for a lower salary than the season before, and for 2 years is "mismanagement"?

I think Walters salary management is exemplary. He's had to make some tough decisions, like Harris, and Jeffcoat, and Gray, but those decisions had to be made, and the team has dealt with any of them and still got to the GC.

Every team has a few high paid players, and a lot of ELC's that have to pay above their pay grades.  That's just the way the league runs. 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Three of the players you list are not currently expected to play in 2024.

Bombers have 2 up and coming Canadian OL to replace Gray. Both may be better than Gray who had many posters thinking that even in 2023.

Jeffcoat replacements include a long list of potential candidates to be proven but as I said, Jeffcoat is not expected to play in 2024.

The Bailey situation as been covered already. He wanted an opportunity to play more and to earn more. We have a dozen potential candidates to replace him.

Arguing any of these losses is due to salary mismanagement would be a hard one to make.

Would you have been willing to not re-sign Schoen or Oliveria in order to have kept those on your list? Wouldn't the argument then revert to the same for not being able to retain those players.

Can't have it both ways. Veteran players want more to re-sign. Both those players signed for less than offered elsewhere. Free agency creates a bidding war across the league for top players.  Decisions are made every season. Was it a good decision to allow Harris to leave 2 years ago and not make Oliveria the starter, allowing SMS to be spent elsewhere? Noting that not every decision works out the way hoped.

You call that mismanagement? You better take another look at the players we were able to re-sign to new deals. You might also take into account the Bombers have been to 4 consecutive Grey Cups winning 2.

Winning is the defining criteria.

From my perspective, the current lineup is not looking as good as it did last season, with numerous question marks and big holes that need to be filled immediately to keep them at or near the top of the league.

Competitively, they are worse on both sides of the line, the O-line lost Hardrick and Gray, two well established veterans, whether Eli or Dobson can measure up in pass protection remains to be seen. Hardrick's replacement remains a huge unknown critically protecting the teams #1 asset. 

The D-line lost Jeffcoat and Walker, I'd be amazed if they came up with 2 new players who could match their contributions.  Jeffcoat was an irreplaceable HOF level player who suffered injury problems and Walker was an experienced vet and the best DT they had on the roster, neither should be expected to play for less $$. As we've seen before, if the D-line fails to administer adequate pressure or stop the run, the secondary folds like a deck of cards.

Amazingly despite the expenditure, the receiver position is potentially worse off with the loss of Bailey, whoever fills his spot will not see that many balls and will have a hard time filling Bailey's shoes in the multiple roles he performed.  It's a crying shame they never made any effort to retain an established veteran like him. 

The secondary is a wash, they still have plenty of good D-backs to fill in for the loss of Rose and Houston, getting Holm and Nichols back was critical.

Clements was the logical successor to Bighill or Wilson at LB and was groomed to do so, this is the kind of succession that has proven successful in the past that is now being neglected in many positions. Cole can fill in as a role player but doesn't have the same level of experience or the proven football IQ to take over that spot yet. If Bighill or Wilson go down early in the season, it may cause a problem.

Of all the players that left, going from their remarks even paying them the salary they received last season would have been enough to retain them, excluding Hardrick who received a huge bump from Sask. and Houston who received a bump from the Stamps. Bailey, Gray, Jeffcoat, Walker, Clements and maybe Grant as well, were all key players to the team's success, none of which were moved on because their performance was inadequate or they had proven replacements ready to step in, they are being replaced mostly with cheaper question marks.

What it came down to was Walters having nothing left in the kitty to make them reasonable offers, so he didn't bother to offer them anything. I can understand one or two replacements per year when other teams make much better offers or a player ages out, but this was not the case in any of these situations.   

Walters saving grace may be his re-signing of Streveler, he has the ability to make up for deficiencies in other areas that could allow them to pull off wins even with less dominating performances.

[Blue In BC]

From my perspective, the current lineup is not looking as good as it did last season, with numerous question marks and big holes that need to be filled immediately to keep them at or near the top of the league.

Competitively, they are worse on both sides of the line, the O-line lost Hardrick and Gray, two well established veterans, whether Eli or Dobson can measure up in pass protection remains to be seen. Hardrick's replacement remains a huge unknown critically protecting the teams #1 asset. 

The D-line lost Jeffcoat and Walker, I'd be amazed if they came up with 2 new players who could match their contributions.  Jeffcoat was an irreplaceable HOF level player who suffered injury problems and Walker was an experienced vet and the best DT they had on the roster, neither should be expected to play for less $$. As we've seen before, if the D-line fails to administer adequate pressure or stop the run, the secondary folds like a deck of cards.

Amazingly despite the expenditure, the receiver position is potentially worse off with the loss of Bailey, whoever fills his spot will not see that many balls and will have a hard time filling Bailey's shoes in the multiple roles he performed.  It's a crying shame they never made any effort to retain an established veteran like him. 

The secondary is a wash, they still have plenty of good D-backs to fill in for the loss of Rose and Houston, getting Holm and Nichols back was critical.

Clements was the logical successor to Bighill or Wilson at LB and was groomed to do so, this is the kind of succession that has proven successful in the past that is now being neglected in many positions. Cole can fill in as a role player but doesn't have the same level of experience or the proven football IQ to take over that spot yet. If Bighill or Wilson go down early in the season, it may cause a problem.

Of all the players that left, going from their remarks even paying them the salary they received last season would have been enough to retain them, excluding Hardrick who received a huge bump from Sask. and Houston who received a bump from the Stamps. Bailey, Gray, Jeffcoat, Walker, Clements and maybe Grant as well, were all key players to the team's success, none of which were moved on because their performance was inadequate or they had proven replacements ready to step in, they are being replaced mostly with cheaper question marks.

What it came down to was Walters having nothing left in the kitty to make them reasonable offers, so he didn't bother to offer them anything. I can understand one or two replacements per year when other teams make much better offers or a player ages out, but this was not the case in any of these situations.   

Walters saving grace may be his re-signing of Streveler, he has the ability to make up for deficiencies in other areas that could allow them to pull off wins even with less dominating performances.

It's the cost of being a top team and players that did re-sign, re-signed for significantly more money.

In particular Oliveria and Schoen each are getting an additional $100K+ over 2023.

IMO the organization decided Cole was a better long term option than Clements. Retaining him wouldn't have been that expensive and he'll still only be a DI elsewhere.

[theaardvark]

From my perspective, the current lineup is not looking as good as it did last season, with numerous question marks and big holes that need to be filled immediately to keep them at or near the top of the league.

Competitively, they are worse on both sides of the line, the O-line lost Hardrick and Gray, two well established veterans, whether Eli or Dobson can measure up in pass protection remains to be seen. Hardrick's replacement remains a huge unknown critically protecting the teams #1 asset. 

The D-line lost Jeffcoat and Walker, I'd be amazed if they came up with 2 new players who could match their contributions.  Jeffcoat was an irreplaceable HOF level player who suffered injury problems and Walker was an experienced vet and the best DT they had on the roster, neither should be expected to play for less $$. As we've seen before, if the D-line fails to administer adequate pressure or stop the run, the secondary folds like a deck of cards.

Amazingly despite the expenditure, the receiver position is potentially worse off with the loss of Bailey, whoever fills his spot will not see that many balls and will have a hard time filling Bailey's shoes in the multiple roles he performed.  It's a crying shame they never made any effort to retain an established veteran like him. 

The secondary is a wash, they still have plenty of good D-backs to fill in for the loss of Rose and Houston, getting Holm and Nichols back was critical.

Clements was the logical successor to Bighill or Wilson at LB and was groomed to do so, this is the kind of succession that has proven successful in the past that is now being neglected in many positions. Cole can fill in as a role player but doesn't have the same level of experience or the proven football IQ to take over that spot yet. If Bighill or Wilson go down early in the season, it may cause a problem.

Of all the players that left, going from their remarks even paying them the salary they received last season would have been enough to retain them, excluding Hardrick who received a huge bump from Sask. and Houston who received a bump from the Stamps. Bailey, Gray, Jeffcoat, Walker, Clements and maybe Grant as well, were all key players to the team's success, none of which were moved on because their performance was inadequate or they had proven replacements ready to step in, they are being replaced mostly with cheaper question marks.

What it came down to was Walters having nothing left in the kitty to make them reasonable offers, so he didn't bother to offer them anything. I can understand one or two replacements per year when other teams make much better offers or a player ages out, but this was not the case in any of these situations.   

Walters saving grace may be his re-signing of Streveler, he has the ability to make up for deficiencies in other areas that could allow them to pull off wins even with less dominating performances.

Pretty sure every one of the bolded players that signed elsewhere got significant bumps, and those that did not sign elsewhere, well... there is a reason.

Every year you need to make decisions about layers, and where you spend your money. 

Schoen meant Bailey didn't get a deserved raise.  And seriously, as much as I LOVE Sheed, its a numbers game, and 4th/5th rec gets an ELC, and Sheed deserved much more than that.  So we have 57 REC candidates in to fil his shoes on an ELC.

Walker and Clements got considerable raises, ones we couldn't match, like Houston.  We lose players every year to that issue.  Its not because Schoen adn Lawler are getting big deals, or even that Collaros is.  Its because, at the end of the day, the GM and his coach decide who will make a difference and how much is that worth.

Collaros, Lawler and Schoen are paid what they are paid because they are there to make a difference.  And, like every other year, where we lost players to retirement, injury or to being outbid, our scouts will bring in talent and we will go back to the GC.

We have a solid Oline to protect Collaros, and the best WR corps (talent and ratio) in the league, the top RB who is ratio busting as well.  And players returning from NFL stints.

Pretty solid job by Walters if you ask me.

[Pete]

The departed players did play a strong role in our success, but it was time to make some changes, you can't continue to sustain such a strong veteran presence in a salary cap situation. I could also argue that we should have brought in some more rookies ly
 In terms of the vets we let go;
Clements: i don't think he's a starting middle linebacker quality player, and if the coaches didn't think so they needed to bring in some new blood now to develop. Last year I didn't see much growth in his play.
Bailey: At this point we've seen what he brings. He's a 500 - 600 yd receiver with good blocking skills. If we can't afford to keep both Lawler and Schoen next year he's not the answer. His production can be accomplished with a new receiver with more upside.
Grey; has always been seen as the weakest link in our oline and with the development of Eli and Dobson it's easy to see why we would move on in a year where the oline drafting class is strong.
Jeffcoat's loss is going to hurt as is Walkers no doubt. but that was the cost of signing Olivera and Shoen

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The departed players did play a strong role in our success, but it was time to make some changes, you can't continue to sustain such a strong veteran presence in a salary cap situation. I could also argue that we should have brought in some more rookies ly
 In terms of the vets we let go;
Clements: i don't think he's a starting middle linebacker quality player, and if the coaches didn't think so they needed to bring in some new blood now to develop. Last year I didn't see much growth in his play.
Bailey: At this point we've seen what he brings. He's a 500 - 600 yd receiver with good blocking skills. If we can't afford to keep both Lawler and Schoen next year he's not the answer. His production can be accomplished with a new receiver with more upside.
Grey; has always been seen as the weakest link in our oline and with the development of Eli and Dobson it's easy to see why we would move on in a year where the oline drafting class is strong.
Jeffcoat's loss is going to hurt as is Walkers no doubt. but that was the cost of signing Olivera and Shoen

I've heard this complaint about Gray over and over again, problem is I've never witnessed it on the field, he never gets bowled over and he's usually leading the blocking down field with Brady more often than not running through the gap to the left of Center. I recall reading that he was making more than any other Natl O-lineman on the team, including Neufeld. If anything is preventing him from continuing his career it's most likely his salary demands, he has better career options than most players and likely wants to maximise his earning potential. Being local, it sure wouldn't take much effort for a reporter to track him down and ask him a few questions.

As for Bailey you neglected to mention his running ability on sweeps, of which he's made some spectacular plays over the past few seasons, more so than Grant or McCrae.  It's a given he and Wolie are not going to see many balls running inside routes and blocking with Lawler, Schoen and Demski as options further downfield.

My contention is it's the depth of the guys below the stars that have kept the Bombers on top of the standings over the past 4 seasons, the strength of the team has been the high quality of the middle core players (journeymen)they've retained that support the main core stars, which most teams can not match. These players know their roles and perform them well, replace them with 5 or 6 ELC players with limited experience across the roster and we might witness some slippage.
 

[Pete]

You are right in that this team is used to having everyone know exactly what to do, with the new players it will take a while. I feel however, is that we should have started replacing some vets earlier so that it's not the turnover we are seeing now (Ie Briggs, Miller, Rose)  We knew all along that Shoen, Olivera, Kolankowski and Nichols were going to need raises, In retrospect we maybe shouldn't have resigned Bailey last year, in order to have developed someone that we could have at least a chance of stepping in if we couldn't sign Schoen)
(the reason I didn't talk about Bailey's running is that he only had 13 carries last year for less than 100 yards) and only 65 yds the year previous. Which will easily be offset with Streveler coming in.

[TecnoGenius]

The salary mismanagement stems from Walters getting in over his head in the receiver dept. by initially re-signing Lawler at an extensive price after Jones blew away the salary cap for receivers, only Walters followed him into the unscripted territory of fiscal mismanagement. The situation was compounded when he had to pay Schoen a similar salary to what he offered Lawler, exceeding the budget for receivers to the point they couldn't afford to bring back a journeyman like Bailey even at a fair salary.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul is never good accounting practice.

We may not agree with some of the decisions, I for one feel we are overinvested in the receiver position at the expense of our defense. But having the best offence in the league may win games for us despite that.

Great points.  We have slowly, quietly, become the team with the highest-paid WR corps (right? certainly if you include our RB), which frankly is insane given Mafia's usually-balanced approach.

Take Lawler: he was brought back as the puzzle piece to win the GC that got away in '22.  We thought we needed just that little bit extra on O.  And it was right: we make that last curl pass on O in '22 and we win that cup.  But here's the thing: the Lawler puzzle piece move then failed to win the '23 cup in the exact same way.  We need a few yards on 2nd down to win the game and we failed.  By that metric, Lawler, as a puzzle piece, was a bust.  A very very expensive bust.

So what if we had that 300k from Lawler with a 100k WR instead and 200k extra spent on our D?  A "real" SAM, and a league-leading DT... does our D then win the '23 GC?

That said, I'm willing to give Lawler a mulligan on '23, and the mediocre post-season performance.  It was a messed up year all-round for him.  But for the team-changing money he's getting he has to make game-changing contributions in the big games.

We've morphed into an O-heavy team.  That doesn't have to be a bad thing.  We are allowed to change if we see an advantage.  But if we're going to do that then we need that O to go out and dominate in the post-season.  They can't let a poser team like MTL sit within 1 score all game and then botch the final drive.  You can't put the games on your D when you've defunded your D by 50%.  With such a high-powered O and mediocre D, you put your O on 3-down footing in that final drive...

And MTL... I'm pretty sure their entire R corps was on ELC!  Our O probably SMS's in at double their O.  And their O got it done.  Hints that maybe our newfound O-heavy SMS approach isn't the best path to solving the puzzle...

What's that saying about what wins championships?

[TecnoGenius]

IMO the organization decided Cole was a better long term option than Clements. Retaining him wouldn't have been that expensive and he'll still only be a DI elsewhere.

Which is funny because Cole is completely different from Clements.  Clements in the bruiser you need in the middle who can lay the wood.  On my rewatch of 2023 Clements is laying wood left and right.

Cole is a speedster finesse-tackler, not a bruiser.  Cole would make a Hurl-level MLB.  He may be good as WILL though.

Clearly we are not worrying about Biggie succession just now, or we pray a great ELC shows up, or we'll lure a top MLB in FA when the time comes... which I'm not against.  Some positions are better filled with proven vets.

Hopefully Biggie is here up to when we win the home cup in '25.  Then we worry about succession.

[TecnoGenius]

I've heard this complaint about Gray over and over again, problem is I've never witnessed it on the field, he never gets bowled over and he's usually leading the blocking down field with Brady more often than not running through the gap to the left of Center.

Gray wasn't bad by any stretch.  And anyone who thinks Dobson/Eli are at Gray-level as a drop-in replacement clearly didn't see all the games where Dobson or Eli started or had significant fill-in time.  They were barely serviceable.

That's not to say Dobson/Eli can't be as good or better than Gray: I just think they won't be on day 1.  Practicing with the first team for an extended time certainly will make them better in the unit, as will more live game reps.

It's funny, I think Dobson would make the better G as he seems to be at a higher level than Eli already, but I also think Dobson is the better 6th OL for jumbo sets.  Eli is clearly the C backup and as such might be better left as the 6th.  Since we usually dress 5 NAT OL, that means some new NAT (DP) may be the 7th OL.  The upshot is: our jumbo packages may be weaker to start this season.

We also have a new problem... in '23 both Gray/Neuf could step in as OT injury replacements (with Dobson/Eli taking the G spots).  Now we just have Neuf.  Who is the natural extra (i.e. second), dressed, OT backup?  No one.

If our NAT DPs don't pan out, or aren't dress-ready, there's always FA Rice, still unsigned and has extensive OT experience...

As for Bailey you neglected to mention his running ability on sweeps, of which he's made some spectacular plays over the past few seasons, more so than Grant or McCrae.  It's a given he and Wolie are not going to see many balls running inside routes and blocking with Lawler, Schoen and Demski as options further downfield.

I loved the Bailey sweeps, and they always seemed to work for >5 yards.  Zero teams expected them, even after getting film.  His running always looked maniacal and frenetic: I just loved it!  Especially when he cut back inside.  But it worked!  And he didn't ever care how much pain was coming his way.

It's little stuff like that we need more of, not less.  You must use all players and you must make the teams defend crazy, if rare, schemes.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Which is funny because Cole is completely different from Clements.  Clements in the bruiser you need in the middle who can lay the wood.  On my rewatch of 2023 Clements is laying wood left and right.

Cole is a speedster finesse-tackler, not a bruiser.  Cole would make a Hurl-level MLB.  He may be good as WILL though.

Clearly we are not worrying about Biggie succession just now, or we pray a great ELC shows up, or we'll lure a top MLB in FA when the time comes... which I'm not against.  Some positions are better filled with proven vets.

Hopefully Biggie is here up to when we win the home cup in '25.  Then we worry about succession.

Clement

Gray wasn't bad by any stretch.  And anyone who thinks Dobson/Eli are at Gray-level as a drop-in replacement clearly didn't see all the games where Dobson or Eli started or had significant fill-in time.  They were barely serviceable.

That's not to say Dobson/Eli can't be as good or better than Gray: I just think they won't be on day 1.  Practicing with the first team for an extended time certainly will make them better in the unit, as will more live game reps.

It's funny, I think Dobson would make the better G as he seems to be at a higher level than Eli already, but I also think Dobson is the better 6th OL for jumbo sets.  Eli is clearly the C backup and as such might be better left as the 6th.  Since we usually dress 5 NAT OL, that means some new NAT (DP) may be the 7th OL.  The upshot is: our jumbo packages may be weaker to start this season.

We also have a new problem... in '23 both Gray/Neuf could step in as OT injury replacements (with Dobson/Eli taking the G spots).  Now we just have Neuf.  Who is the natural extra (i.e. second), dressed, OT backup?  No one.

If our NAT DPs don't pan out, or aren't dress-ready, there's always FA Rice, still unsigned and has extensive OT experience...

I loved the Bailey sweeps, and they always seemed to work for >5 yards.  Zero teams expected them, even after getting film.  His running always looked maniacal and frenetic: I just loved it!  Especially when he cut back inside.  But it worked!  And he didn't ever care how much pain was coming his way.

It's little stuff like that we need more of, not less.  You must use all players and you must make the teams defend crazy, if rare, schemes.

Which is funny because Cole is completely different from Clements.  Clements in the bruiser you need in the middle who can lay the wood.  On my rewatch of 2023 Clements is laying wood left and right.

Cole is a speedster finesse-tackler, not a bruiser.  Cole would make a Hurl-level MLB.  He may be good as WILL though.

Clearly we are not worrying about Biggie succession just now, or we pray a great ELC shows up, or we'll lure a top MLB in FA when the time comes... which I'm not against.  Some positions are better filled with proven vets.

Hopefully Biggie is here up to when we win the home cup in '25.  Then we worry about succession.

I don't really see Biggie effectively hanging on for another 2 seasons, but if he does it should be more as a role player not as an every down MLB. They need to have his replacement in house, developing and taking reps this year as the MLB job in the CFL seems to require a longer learning curve and higher level understanding than most other positions.  They threw away 3 years of investment when they let Clements walk out the door, Bryan Cole needs to bulk up by at least 20 lbs. if he wants to be considered for MLB. 

Bryant and Biggie were the logical candidates to be pushed towards retirement due to their age and the SMS they eat up, but some players seem to have more clout than others in determining when to hang up their shoes.

[blue_gold_84]

Bryant and Biggie were the logical candidates to be pushed towards retirement due to their age and the SMS they eat up, but some players seem to have more clout than others in determining when to hang up their shoes.

What would've been logical about forcing either of them to retire?

No player should be told when to retire, regardless of their SMS hit or their perceived* expiration date.

* by someone outside of the organization

Bighill and Bryant are both leaders on and off the field, commanding loads of respect from their teammates and their coaches. The former still has a year left on his contract and the latter just re-signed for another year and remains arguably among the best O-linemen in the league.

Losing depth/developmental pieces is just the nature of the business when roster salary restrictions exist; no team in this league is immune to that reality. That's especially so for a team that's been the benchmark of dominance and success for the past few regular seasons, as well as making four straight championship appearances and winning two.

[TecnoGenius]

Ya, I think the reasons TLB gave for why they want a future MLB in-house right now are exactly the reasons we'll just buy an established one when the time comes.  That's what we did with Biggie.

And why wouldn't we be able to snipe a top MLB in FA when our need arises?  Everyone wants to play here.  It's not a hard sell.

Yes, an in-house dev guy gives us the ELC dividend for a couple of years, and that's nice, but it's not a requirement.  But even guys with 1-2 seasons under their belts aren't necessarily CFL MLB-ready.

I think we all liked Clements to a degree, but I also think most can agree it was clear he wasn't the next Biggie or Singleton or Muamba.  Not sure Cole can be that either, bulkier or otherwise.  There's also the aspect of having to have a lot of stuff going on upstairs, and I have no read on that with any of the current prospects.

I'm pretty sure Clements will be relegated to the backup/rotation role for the season, no matter what team he's AR'd on.

Speaking of Singleton... is he ever coming back?  We could "pull a Bighill" and lure him into WPG... He might be too rich now to bother, though.  He's now 30 so his NFL time may be limited.

[Blue In BC]

I don't think anybody thought either Clements or Cole were possible replacements for Bighill in the future. It was more about Cole was a better DI choice and less expensive overall. IMO he's not written in stone to even make the roster, but that's something we'll find out in TC.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

What would've been logical about forcing either of them to retire?

No player should be told when to retire, regardless of their SMS hit or their perceived* expiration date.

* by someone outside of the organization

Bighill and Bryant are both leaders on and off the field, commanding loads of respect from their teammates and their coaches. The former still has a year left on his contract and the latter just re-signed for another year and remains arguably among the best O-linemen in the league.

Losing depth/developmental pieces is just the nature of the business when roster salary restrictions exist; no team in this league is immune to that reality. That's especially so for a team that's been the benchmark of dominance and success for the past few regular seasons, as well as making four straight championship appearances and winning two.

The logic of steering Biggie and Bryant towards the door is pretty obvious, no one would be shocked if they made that decision on their own as it's highly anticipated they will, if not this season than next. Agewise they're both well past their prime while still being paid at or near the top of their positional salary ladders. Age and expense should be the obvious factor determining if a veteran player should be extended or not. It's the simplest way of maintaining a balance of age and salary on a team. I believe both Wally and Huff would be nodding their head's in agreement, getting rid of them one year early is better than getting rid of them one year too late. 

I wouldn't grouse if other solid vet. players in the prime of the careers playing for lower wages were not pushed aside mostly due to decisions like this and poor salary management of other positions. Which all began in spring of 2023 with the decision to bring Lawler back at a high cost after Schoen had already proven he was more than an adequate replacement and cheaper. The team may not have won the GC in 2023 either without Kenny onboard, but the salary structure could have retained it's stability and a balance of contentment within the team. A few greedy players are quite capable of sinking ships.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Ya, I think the reasons TLB gave for why they want a future MLB in-house right now are exactly the reasons we'll just buy an established one when the time comes.  That's what we did with Biggie.

And why wouldn't we be able to snipe a top MLB in FA when our need arises?  Everyone wants to play here.  It's not a hard sell.

Yes, an in-house dev guy gives us the ELC dividend for a couple of years, and that's nice, but it's not a requirement.  But even guys with 1-2 seasons under their belts aren't necessarily CFL MLB-ready.

I think we all liked Clements to a degree, but I also think most can agree it was clear he wasn't the next Biggie or Singleton or Muamba.  Not sure Cole can be that either, bulkier or otherwise.  There's also the aspect of having to have a lot of stuff going on upstairs, and I have no read on that with any of the current prospects.

I'm pretty sure Clements will be relegated to the backup/rotation role for the season, no matter what team he's AR'd on.

Speaking of Singleton... is he ever coming back?  We could "pull a Bighill" and lure him into WPG... He might be too rich now to bother, though.  He's now 30 so his NFL time may be limited.

The problem with bringing an experienced MLB in from another team is most of the good ones are already earning in the ball park of $150k, which is about what Bighill is getting paid. Wilson could potentially take over that role if they could find his replacement at WIL.

[blue_gold_84]

The logic of steering Biggie and Bryant towards the door is pretty obvious, no one would be shocked if they made that decision on their own as it's highly anticipated they will, if not this season than next. Agewise they're both well past their prime while still being paid at or near the top of their positional salary ladders. Age and expense should be the obvious factor determining if a veteran player should be extended or not. It's the simplest way of maintaining a balance of age and salary on a team. I believe both Wally and Huff would be nodding their head's in agreement, getting rid of them one year early is better than getting rid of them one year too late. 

Quite the hill upon which you've chosen to die here. And still no logic from the look of it, obvious or not.

There's nothing logical about trying to force a player to retire and use some questionable formula of "balance of age and salary" when all a GM has to do is either not offer a new contract or simply release the player and void an existing contract.
Bryant re-signed, so it seems like a logical conclusion he wants to keep playing for at least another year. He remains one of the best at his craft.
Same with Bighill: he's on the final year of his contract and has made no hint that he's done playing. He's not the impact player he once was but he's still pretty effective when he plays. It also seems like a logical conclusion that Clements* isn't the answer, hence his departure. 
I can only speculate but both come across as athletes who would want to retire on their own terms, and not be influenced by others to do so - regardless of the logic applied.

* who was only here for two seasons in what was largely a backup role

I wouldn't grouse if other solid vet. players in the prime of the careers playing for lower wages were not pushed aside mostly due to decisions like this and poor salary management of other positions. Which all began in spring of 2023 with the decision to bring Lawler back at a high cost after Schoen had already proven he was more than an adequate replacement and cheaper. The team may not have won the GC in 2023 either without Kenny onboard, but the salary structure could have retained it's stability and a balance of contentment within the team. A few greedy players are quite capable of sinking ships.

I don't even know what to make of this. It seems like you're making some pretty baseless accusations leveled at Walters and some players going back to last year.

[Waffler]

Take Lawler: he was brought back as the puzzle piece to win the GC that got away in '22.  We thought we needed just that little bit extra on O.  And it was right: we make that last curl pass on O in '22 and we win that cup.  But here's the thing: the Lawler puzzle piece move then failed to win the '23 cup in the exact same way.  We need a few yards on 2nd down to win the game and we failed.  By that metric, Lawler, as a puzzle piece, was a bust.  A very very expensive bust.

Not sure about your wanting to pin horns on Lawler.  901 yards in 12 games. and the longest average gain of his career 18 yards per catch.

Sure you can say defense wins championships but you can also say it's a team game and Lawler is just one man. One who contributes I might add. Should we say Colloras lost the Cup because he floated a sure touchdown pass for seemingly no reason? And if you want to say our D was not strong enough, then you can also blame the coaches for letting Bighill play. Not sure what Lawler did wrong once he did get on the field.

[Pete]

was just looking at our rookie receivers...doesn't Keytaon Thompson remind you of a younger Bailey?  6ft 4 217 lbs, bailey 6ft 1 217 lbs,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=afgg8xrzzm0
even runs sweeps.

[TecnoGenius]

The problem with bringing an experienced MLB in from another team is most of the good ones are already earning in the ball park of $150k, which is about what Bighill is getting paid. Wilson could potentially take over that role if they could find his replacement at WIL.

Your $ point makes my point, though.  When the time comes we can probably get a top 3-5 year vet MLB for about the same $ as Biggie.  Thus it makes a very attractive fallback should we not find the next Biggie through scouting (which we never have, BTW, in the last decade).

I think we all would love to scout a top MLB prospect, groom him in '24 and have him start and be the next Singleton in '25 whilst still on ELC.  But my money is on reality being we just buy a FA when Biggie finally retires.  But both are possible.

As for Wilson: he's like a bigger Cole.  Fast but not bruising.  I'm pretty sure that he will never start for us @ MLB unless a bad injury situation arises.  He does seem smart, though.  I think there's a reason, though, that we tended to start one of our vet NATs at MLB during short injury intervals or garbage season, though (Gauthier? Briggs? Miles? ya, and Clements too on the IMP side).

I realized what it is I think a MLB needs to be, in my mind at least... they need to be that Muamba or Biggie standing 2Y back from the GL on X & goal from the 1, staring down the QB and hitting or jumping the pile to make that GL stop.  That's not Wilson or Cole because they don't have the mass (especially per height).  Next is brains.  Big football brains.  Then range, and relatedly, speed.

[TecnoGenius]

There's nothing logical about trying to force a player to retire and use some questionable formula of "balance of age and salary" when all a GM has to do is either not offer a new contract or simply release the player and void an existing contract.
[...]
I don't even know what to make of this. It seems like you're making some pretty baseless accusations leveled at Walters and some players going back to last year.

To be devil's advocate for TLB, he could have been meaning that we could get stuck with a player who completely loses his effectiveness early in the season.

Let's say Biggie can play/start but for some reason just flails around out there (I think of Randle's last couple of games with us, and it makes me sad).  If that's week 3, that could be big trouble.  If we need to A.Bowman him then we're on the hook for the guaranteed / vet stuff, lose the signing bonus, and whatever else the contract/CFLBA stipulates.  Worse, we're then left with no choice but to pick through the mid-season couch-sitters for a viable replacement.

The sin here would then be thinking this could happen to a player like Biggie (again, not injury/6GIR, but playable but useless)... it could, fair point, but it's very unlikely.

As for the KW talk: it's fair to question if KW has gone a bit nuts with the O/WRs, if the Kenny deal started it, if he's throwing good money after bad or saving face... and whether it's the best path for the Bombers.  I'm not saying that, but it is fair to have that opinion, because KW is riding a very fine line at the moment.  We all sense we've morphed pretty blatantly into an O-centric team.  And that makes the D-fanatics among us used to the 2018-2019-ish Bombers nervous.

In defense of KW, he has proven very right for most of these years.  The Mafia does a very good job in their formulations and plans.  That's why I said let's give the Kenny puzzle piece another year to pan out.  '23 was a messed up year for Kenny, and it hurt our team in some ways.  A no-distractions year might yield different GC results.

[TecnoGenius]

Not sure about your wanting to pin horns on Lawler.  901 yards in 12 games. and the longest average gain of his career 18 yards per catch.

Sure you can say defense wins championships but you can also say it's a team game and Lawler is just one man. One who contributes I might add. Should we say Colloras lost the Cup because he floated a sure touchdown pass for seemingly no reason? And if you want to say our D was not strong enough, then you can also blame the coaches for letting Bighill play. Not sure what Lawler did wrong once he did get on the field.

My point is subtler... it's not a dig at Kenny, it's just pointing out that as the biggest puzzle piece brought in to seal that cup, he was a failure.  Not because he didn't get some GC yards: but because we didn't win the cup!

It has nothing to do with any one play or series or even the INT.  It's not blaming Kenny or Zach or the OL or the blockers or the decoy routes for that INT.  It's just chess.  We changed a pawn to a knight in '23 because in '22 if we had just that one extra knight we would have won (well, and a Castle Castillo Rook instead of a Leggy pawn, too): in theory.  That's what I'm thinking KW was thinking, and since none of us knows, my guess is as good as anyone's.  That's how I'd think about it.

And no dig on Kenny because I'm still ok with the move, and I'm also ok on his retention for '24.  I think he can use a full-season of momentum to get more in the zone by GC and get us 150Y and be the Geroy Simon-in-the-EZ-in-2013 we need him to be in the '24 GC.

[TecnoGenius]

was just looking at our rookie receivers...doesn't Keytaon Thompson remind you of a younger Bailey?  6ft 4 217 lbs, bailey 6ft 1 217 lbs,

Tall ones make me nervous.  They get injured a lot (Agudosi, Rogers, N.Moore), and sometimes made it to where they are based, at least in part, on height bigotry instead of production.

And if a tall one escapes the clutches of the NFL that usually means something is really wrong, because if you're tall and good in the USA, you're in the NFL.  That's why the 5'7 to 6'1 crowd makes such great CFL scouting finds... can be top notch hands/brains/routes but too short to be NFL-viable.  Weston Dressler, anyone?

But hey, if he's the next Rogers-in-his-prime, then I'm game!  Just not sure I want him taking the mega hits Bailey could take.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Your $ point makes my point, though.  When the time comes we can probably get a top 3-5 year vet MLB for about the same $ as Biggie.  Thus it makes a very attractive fallback should we not find the next Biggie through scouting (which we never have, BTW, in the last decade).

I think we all would love to scout a top MLB prospect, groom him in '24 and have him start and be the next Singleton in '25 whilst still on ELC.  But my money is on reality being we just buy a FA when Biggie finally retires.  But both are possible.

As for Wilson: he's like a bigger Cole.  Fast but not bruising.  I'm pretty sure that he will never start for us @ MLB unless a bad injury situation arises.  He does seem smart, though.  I think there's a reason, though, that we tended to start one of our vet NATs at MLB during short injury intervals or garbage season, though (Gauthier? Briggs? Miles? ya, and Clements too on the IMP side).

I realized what it is I think a MLB needs to be, in my mind at least... they need to be that Muamba or Biggie standing 2Y back from the GL on X & goal from the 1, staring down the QB and hitting or jumping the pile to make that GL stop.  That's not Wilson or Cole because they don't have the mass (especially per height).  Next is brains.  Big football brains.  Then range, and relatedly, speed.

At one time Biggie was the best MLB in the league no question, I think it could be argued now that there are at least 4-5 MLB's that are more dominant and much younger.  Same goes for Alexander at Safety, these guys are fast approaching their expiry date as great players.

[blue_gold_84]

To be devil's advocate for TLB, he could have been meaning that we could get stuck with a player who completely loses his effectiveness early in the season.

Let's say Biggie can play/start but for some reason just flails around out there (I think of Randle's last couple of games with us, and it makes me sad).  If that's week 3, that could be big trouble.  If we need to A.Bowman him then we're on the hook for the guaranteed / vet stuff, lose the signing bonus, and whatever else the contract/CFLBA stipulates.  Worse, we're then left with no choice but to pick through the mid-season couch-sitters for a viable replacement.

The sin here would then be thinking this could happen to a player like Biggie (again, not injury/6GIR, but playable but useless)... it could, fair point, but it's very unlikely.

As for the KW talk: it's fair to question if KW has gone a bit nuts with the O/WRs, if the Kenny deal started it, if he's throwing good money after bad or saving face... and whether it's the best path for the Bombers.  I'm not saying that, but it is fair to have that opinion, because KW is riding a very fine line at the moment.  We all sense we've morphed pretty blatantly into an O-centric team.  And that makes the D-fanatics among us used to the 2018-2019-ish Bombers nervous.

In defense of KW, he has proven very right for most of these years.  The Mafia does a very good job in their formulations and plans.  That's why I said let's give the Kenny puzzle piece another year to pan out.  '23 was a messed up year for Kenny, and it hurt our team in some ways.  A no-distractions year might yield different GC results.

I'd argue that's the risk every GM of a consistently successful team runs with regard to player retention at key positions and balancing a roster to have sufficient depth. It's just the nature of the business, IMO.

We're at a point with the organization where the team has enjoyed significant and consistent success for nearly five years, if not longer. But that undoubtedly comes with a price. Key contributors are typically remunerated with raises to retain their services and that can mean making some tough choices and losing depth pieces (Clements, Gray, Hansen, O'Leary-Orange) or even some adored veterans (Bailey, Hardrick, Houston, Jeffcoat, Rose). That's why it's imperative to have competent scouting and keep the pipeline replenished in order to maintain a certain level of competitiveness. I would argue that level of scouting has been maintained the last few seasons but this one could be the most challenging yet for Walters and co.; time will tell. I think it's too early to hit any panic button, though. If anyone has earned some leeyway with his managerial decision-making, it's Kyle Walters.

I'm not sure I can agree that he's riding a fine line based on the team spending more money on offense the last year or so. The offense has been a driver of the team's success going back to 2021 but that hasn't necessarily come at the price of the defense falling off in terms of its production or capability. The depth on that side of the ball has taken a hit and I think the loss of Jeffcoat in particular will be felt. The offense may have to pick up the slack but considering how potent it's been the last few seasons, I'm comfortable positing that it's up to the task should the need arise. There's also the wildcard of scouts unearthing the next talented piece who can step up and make a name for himself. That potential excites considering how well the scouts have done lately.

Whether Walters' decisions create an imbalance obviously remains to be seen. I'm just of the opinion that a wait and see approach is sensible, especially in mid-ish April. There's still rookie camp, training camp, and pre-season (and even early on in the regular season) for new talent to be assessed and for potential shortfalls to be addressed as that relates to the team's changed complexion.

This organization is a well-oiled machine and is the benchmark for sustained success in the CFL. At present, I don't see that changing into the 2024 season because some tough decisions had to be made this off-season.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Quite the hill upon which you've chosen to die here. And still no logic from the look of it, obvious or not.

There's nothing logical about trying to force a player to retire and use some questionable formula of "balance of age and salary" when all a GM has to do is either not offer a new contract or simply release the player and void an existing contract.
Bryant re-signed, so it seems like a logical conclusion he wants to keep playing for at least another year. He remains one of the best at his craft.
Same with Bighill: he's on the final year of his contract and has made no hint that he's done playing. He's not the impact player he once was but he's still pretty effective when he plays. It also seems like a logical conclusion that Clements* isn't the answer, hence his departure. 
I can only speculate but both come across as athletes who would want to retire on their own terms, and not be influenced by others to do so - regardless of the logic applied.

* who was only here for two seasons in what was largely a backup role

I don't even know what to make of this. It seems like you're making some pretty baseless accusations leveled at Walters and some players going back to last year.

You're getting all twisted over semantics, "forced to retire" just refers to a player being cut and not being able to sign with another team. Nobody is forcing anyone to quit football, but if a past all-star is being eased out the door, it's better the team use kid gloves and try to negotiate a softer landing for that player, at least from a public perception standpoint.

[blue_gold_84]

You're getting all twisted over semantics, "forced to retire" just refers to a player being cut and not being able to sign with another team. Nobody is forcing anyone to quit football, but if a past all-star is being eased out the door, it's better the team use kid gloves and try to negotiate a softer landing for that player, at least from a public perception standpoint.

Semantics do matter, especially when the term "forced retirement" gets thrown into the equation. Semantics should also matter to anyone who's overly concerned with something as immaterial as public perception or other such optics. These are professional athletes, not children who need to be coddled or placated when their contract demands aren't met. The team comes first and that's exemplified by this organization as well as any in the CFL.

I'm guessing your vexation with Walter stems from Jeffcoat's unexpected departure more than anything. How that played out falls at the feet of not only the GM but also the player. It takes two parties to negotiate a contract and the vast majority of that transaction takes place behind closed doors, which seems especially unique in the CFL. How the public perceives any of it is irrelevant.

The fact that no other team ostensibly reached out to him since free agency began should be the most telling public perception of all, IMO.

[Waffler]

Bryant and Biggie were the logical candidates to be pushed towards retirement

I believe Biggie has guaranteed money this year. 100k. So for whatever he makes over that is what you'd have to pay his replacement just to break even. Biggie is going to play, barring injury.

[theaardvark]

Its hard to argue Walters results.  4 straight GC appearances for his players, 2 rings.

With every decision about who to keep and who to let walk, he will be judged at the end of the year.  He knows that.  And he does not make those decisions lightly.

Sometimes, players make those decisions for him, either by signing inflated contracts elsewhere, or looking for more than he is comfortable offering (for whatever reason), and we sign someone else to his job.  Regardless the reason, Walters will be judged on it.

His decisions are not always popular, but they cannot be argued against as being ineffective, given his results year after year. 

The scouts are going to have to bring in a bumper crop this year, for this year and going forward, replacing a lot of our veterans including Bighill, Bryant and Jefferson. 

But the Canadian Mafia has a proven record, and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

[Blue In BC]

I see Givhan was added to the retired list. Not sure if he is moving away from a football career or whether this is a short term need due to some injury or family issue.

Regardless, missing TC as essentially a rookie usually is the end.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I see Givhan was added to the retired list. Not sure if he is moving away from a football career or whether this is a short term need due to some injury or family issue.

Regardless, missing TC as essentially a rookie usually is the end.

Looks like Givhan was a DE, can't recall if he received any game time or not but that brings it down to 4 newish DE's + Bennett competing for possibly 2 roster positions.

[Blue In BC]

Looks like Givhan was a DE, can't recall if he received any game time or not but that brings it down to 4 newish DE's + Bennett competing for possibly 2 roster positions.

I don't think he had any game time but was on the PR for awhile.

Haba has to be somewhat of a front runner at DE, but that could change early in TC. Not sure whether Waggoner is a DE, DT or can play both. He's 20 lbs heavier and 2" shorter than Jefferson but I have no idea on his speed or quickness. Listed as a DL and not as either a DE or DT. That may mean nothing or something.

Hew as listed as a LT DE/Edge player for Iowa Buckeyes.

[kkc60]

I don't think he had any game time but was on the PR for awhile.

Haba has to be somewhat of a front runner at DE, but that could change early in TC. Not sure whether Waggoner is a DE, DT or can play both. He's 20 lbs heavier and 2" shorter than Jefferson but I have no idea on his speed or quickness. Listed as a DL and not as either a DE or DT. That may mean nothing or something.

Hew as listed as a LT DE/Edge player for Iowa Buckeyes.

I think Haba and Waggoner (if he is good enough) could be a good DI+ Starter combo. Haba is too small to play inside on obvious passing situations, Waggoner doesn't seem athletic enough to play DE consistently, especially on clear passing situations

[Blue In BC]

I think Haba and Waggoner (if he is good enough) could be a good DI+ Starter combo. Haba is too small to play inside on obvious passing situations, Waggoner doesn't seem athletic enough to play DE consistently, especially on clear passing situations

Sounds reasonable at this point in time. TC is not that far away and some current players on roster won't even make it to the main TC. Who sticks for TC and who gets added before TC will heat up over the next few weeks. A few tryout camps will be held at the end of the month.

A few will get signed for TC.