OL whispers

[TecnoGenius]

The KW interview TLB posted:
https://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?msg=1653408

At 31:00 KW gives his thoughts on the OL.  This is the first official word on the most likely week 1 OL line-up we've gotten (I do believe).

"We'll have the option to play 3 Americans".  KW said that first, meaning that may be the most likely scenario.  "We'll kick the tires on that."

"Wallace has a big big future, he's gonna come in and push."

So it's all good news.  Randolph may start LG like I wanted since Dobson left, and Wallace is still being groomed for the spot (or others?) for obvious ratio reasons.

The "new" takeaway for me is they seem very keen on Wallace which means that they're planning on him being more than just a jumbo/TE.  That's awesome!

In the other KW draft interview he said the rookie NAT OL have the hardest time mastering pass-pro.  That's probably the case with (bigger/slower?) Wallace.  If they're getting him past that then we might be sitting pretty in '26.

He also seemed high on the other 2 PR OL being able to start one day.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

You don't need to pour over interview film and delve into "whispers" -- you just need to look at the roster construction and the moves that get made. They're all deliberate. They're all extensively planned. At least the big picture ones.

Lots of QBs. Lots of American OL. More defensive Canadians in the draft.

You just need to pay a bit of attention to the actions of the team and you can see where things are headed.

[Blueforlife]

The KW interview TLB posted:
https://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?msg=1653408

At 31:00 KW gives his thoughts on the OL.  This is the first official word on the most likely week 1 OL line-up we've gotten (I do believe).

"We'll have the option to play 3 Americans".  KW said that first, meaning that may be the most likely scenario.  "We'll kick the tires on that."

"Wallace has a big big future, he's gonna come in and push."

So it's all good news.  Randolph may start LG like I wanted since Dobson left, and Wallace is still being groomed for the spot (or others?) for obvious ratio reasons.

The "new" takeaway for me is they seem very keen on Wallace which means that they're planning on him being more than just a jumbo/TE.  That's awesome!

In the other KW draft interview he said the rookie NAT OL have the hardest time mastering pass-pro.  That's probably the case with (bigger/slower?) Wallace.  If they're getting him past that then we might be sitting pretty in '26.

He also seemed high on the other 2 PR OL being able to start one day.

Thanks for your input and deep dive, it's appreciated

[Blue In BC]

Fingers are crossed that Wallace can win the LG out of TC. That would take us back to 8 Canadian starters. OTOH, we'd need to find another Canadian OL as depth. We have been keeping 7 OL on the AR for the last couple of seasons. We did draft another OL but I have no idea if he's even ready to be a 7th guy.

I can understand the possibility of a 3rd import OL but I don't like some of the associated risks to the ratio and injury adjustments.

For that matter I'm not sure I like where we might be headed with our DI's and other ratio choices. DL in particular depth in particular. That's part of the possible cost of using another import OL.

[Blue In BC]

Ok. A few of the possiblities.

1. LB: We have Jones, Jones, Wilson and Ayers fighting for the starters role. IMO one import would be a DI. Since we drafted 3 LB's, that may not be necessary. I can see Ayers moved to the PR. OTOH, I can't see J. Jones or Wilson accepting that role. IMO J. Jones will win the role at WIL. Where does that leave Wilson?

2. DL: It's possible we don't keep a DI at the DT position. It's possible we do add the 2nd global at DE along with Glowanlock as depth. Adding the 2nd global eliminates one Canadian back up. That may or may not be the best alternative. Is our Canadian depth at DT good enough to not have a DI?

3. DB: I think not having a DI is the least likely of the choices. Lost Alexander, Taylor, Hallett and Ford

I think we have depth on offence and our depth will be Canadian + Logan as a DI.

So yes we can start 3 import OL. Is this Neufeld's last year? Are Eli and Kolo in the last year of their contracts? Even Randolph is probably a potential free agent. Bryant is one a 1 year deal. Not sure about Lofton but he may be on a 1 year deal.

Aside from the ratio issue of that 3rd OL in 2025, I'm also concerned with where we're headed in 2026.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Put yourself in Walters shoes:

You had a 3-5 ranked offensive line in 2024 depending on time of season and quality of appointment.

You've got a Grey Cup to win at home in 2025.

It's reasonable to assume some regression from your aging starters going into this year so you'll likely get more of the same (this isn't a young line hitting a peak).

Ideally, you want to have the best offensive line in the league and you want them to be primary Canadian but can you pull that off in an offseason? No. Why? There is extreme scarcity and draft and development takes lots of time and plenty of risk.

Okay, so what can you do to more quickly improve offensive line play for 2025? (Cue roster moves that have taken place).

Of course "it's only an option" and you have to cross compare the net benefit of that with the implications elsewhere which makes it challenging but that's what they do.

And the calculus on week one may be very different than labour day when older players may be dinged and hopefully newer players have had time to get used to the yard off the ball, etc.

[Blue In BC]

No.

Much as anyone would love to go import along the Oline and demean the contribution Canadian hoggies make to our game, if you read Walters lips, he says that 3 imp Oline "is an option". 

Yes, it is due to the emergence of NAT starters in ratio breaking spots.  But it is not the preferred alignment, especially when you have enough quality NATs to do the job.

MOS will field a squad with 8 starting NATs whenever possible, 9 sometimes or even 10.  As long as Walters gives him the tools to do such, he will.  If injuries cause them to only start 7, we still don't need a "fake nat" snap, ever.  And we will get free DP's, like Elgersma.

If Wallace does not start the season at RG, I will be very disappointed.  Eli 6th man.  And some development Oline on the PR.  Wasting a spot on an Imp Oline makes no sense, unless Wallace is not up to the job, which I think he has more than shown he is.

The 3rd Imp Oline would more likely be in replacing Neufeld should father time have caught up with him this offseason, IMHO. 

You're confusing the issue possibly by mistake in discussing both LG and RG.

If you think Neufeld is the one to be replaced with an import, then we have a bigger problem than I thought. We have to replace Dobson at LG. Whether Wallace is capable is the 1st question.   Yes Neufeld is past his best before date, but he's being paid as a starter.

However, IMO the LG is part of the blind side which is more critical to fill than the RG.

All of that said, I expect Neufeld to be starting at RG. I don't envision changing both G's.

[markf]

Old, and ( for good reason) skittish quarterback, who has frequently been targeted by dirty players, with an O line that was overwhelmed in the Grey Cup, and not great at pass protection all season....

= three American O line.

[Pete]

Heres the way I see it:
LBs the two Jones, and a di - will be interesting battle with Ayers/Wilson
Ol Randolph actually is an upgrade over Dobson. With the schemes we use we need 7 oline on roster,so making Wallace starter isn't that benificial.

[theaardvark]

Neufeld has played both, and OT.  Yes, it is part of the blindside.  And there is no issue moving him that way.

Dobson played the whole year at LG, Randolph subbed for Neuf at RG.

We're going to need a new LG with the absence of Dobson, and even with the Brinks truck full of cash Goveia handed him, if they thought they needed him here, they'd have found a way to keep him.

If Neuf is still capable, and can play LG, its a no brainer to put him there and Wallace at RG.  If Wallace has progressed enough to play LG, great. 

I just don't think we are at the moment to need a 3 imp oline.  And hopefully, we have prospects that will assure that going forward. 

Now, if we have 3 monster imp olinemen that are heads above available nats, and we have 6 starting non-ol nats, you'd be insane not to go with that.  But if its a close call, you have to choose the roster flexibility of 3 nat oline.

[Jesse]

Once again, I just hope we give both Randolph and Wallace a shot and see which version of the OL performs better. I hope we give the units reps together during the preseason and make an evaluation based on performance.

I don't think we can sit here and say one is "preferred" over the other. The preferred alignment is the best players on the field. Teams used to hide Canadians on the OL but that is no longer the case. We specifically went out to find defensive players in this draft to give ourselves options. And Walters also made a point in saying how much they like Randolph and Vanterpool.

We have 2 WR, RB, DT, LB.

We can roll 2 OL or 3 OL with no impact on ratio. We have options on defence if we need to make an adjustment due to injuries.

[Jesse]

Neufeld has played both, and OT.  Yes, it is part of the blindside.  And there is no issue moving him that way.

Dobson played the whole year at LG, Randolph subbed for Neuf at RG.

We're going to need a new LG with the absence of Dobson, and even with the Brinks truck full of cash Goveia handed him, if they thought they needed him here, they'd have found a way to keep him.

If Neuf is still capable, and can play LG, its a no brainer to put him there and Wallace at RG.  If Wallace has progressed enough to play LG, great. 

I just don't think we are at the moment to need a 3 imp oline.  And hopefully, we have prospects that will assure that going forward. 

Now, if we have 3 monster imp olinemen that are heads above available nats, and we have 6 starting non-ol nats, you'd be insane not to go with that.  But if its a close call, you have to choose the roster flexibility of 3 nat oline.

I don't know why you're talking about moving Neuf. Just call your previous post a typo and move on.

The conversation is solely about LG. The rest of the line is likely written in pen.

[Blue In BC]

Once again, I just hope we give both Randolph and Wallace a shot and see which version of the OL performs better. I hope we give the units reps together during the preseason and make an evaluation based on performance.

I don't think we can sit here and say one is "preferred" over the other. The preferred alignment is the best players on the field. Teams used to hide Canadians on the OL but that is no longer the case. We specifically went out to find defensive players in this draft to give ourselves options. And Walters also made a point in saying how much they like Randolph and Vanterpool.

We have 2 WR, RB, DT, LB.

We can roll 2 OL or 3 OL with no impact on ratio. We have options on defence if we need to make an adjustment due to injuries.

I doubt many will agree that it's a no brainer to move Neufeld.

Of course using a 3rd import OL has an impact on the ratio. We don't have a Canadian LB that will be starting. We might eliminate a DI but that's a different choice. Even with an injury, we aren't likely starting a Canadian LB except possibly in game. That would suggest we don't have a LB as a DI. That's far from certain at the moment.

We might have depth at DT and secondary in game, but a full time starter? I don't think so to start the season.

[Jesse]

I doubt many will agree that it's a no brainer to move Neufeld.

Of course using a 3rd import OL has an impact on the ratio. We don't have a Canadian LB that will be starting. We might eliminate a DI but that's a different choice. Even with an injury, we aren't likely starting a Canadian LB except possibly in game. That would suggest we don't have a LB as a DI. That's far from certain at the moment.

We might have depth at DT and secondary in game, but a full time starter? I don't think so to start the season.

We wouldn't need to to start the season. We have 7 starters with 2 OL.

If needed, you put someone in at safety. We've subbed in Gauthier at LB in case of emergency too. Or go at 3 OL as needed. There are many options IF we need to in case of injury, but it shouldn't decide our starting OL.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

You're confusing the issue possibly by mistake in discussing both LG and RG.

If you think Neufeld is the one to be replaced with an import, then we have a bigger problem than I thought. We have to replace Dobson at LG. Whether Wallace is capable is the 1st question.   Yes Neufeld is past his best before date, but he's being paid as a starter.

However, IMO the LG is part of the blind side which is more critical to fill than the RG.

All of that said, I expect Neufeld to be starting at RG. I don't envision changing both G's.

The problem I see is retaining Randolph if they choose to start Wallace at LG, maybe they could use him on the short yardage team along with Eli, but I don't think he would accept a PR assignment, nor should he.  Pretty sure they want to hold onto him until Stan retires, but that becomes more difficult the longer Stan plays. 

TC is not only about choosing the most talented players in each position, it always involves listening to the players and finding the right balance to keep personal happy with the role their playing on the team.