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.

[Blue In BC]

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.

I already said we'd have 7 Canadian starters if we use 3 import OL. It hasn't been our 1st choice the last couple of years and provides LESS flexibility.

Having options is great but those aren't all good options beyond in game situations. Gauthier should even be an in game injury replacement. 13 DT's total in the past 2 years. If we don't have a DI LB then I'd use one of the new draft choices.

Someone at safety? Sure Kelly might be a good in game replacement. Hallett or Hagerty not so much.

The best combination of choices decide how we use our ratio. I'm not convinced a 3rd OL is the best use, but it may be a forced decision if Wallace can't win the spot.

I guess we'll see how this shapes up during pre-season.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

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 don't see a whole lot of ratio flexibility on Defence other than at Safety, they don't have any Natl. LB or DB's that could step in if needed, I think Gauthier will be reduced to a ST role as he was already headed that way last season. DT, Sam, and Safety might be all they play.

[Jesse]

I already said we'd have 7 Canadian starters if we use 3 import OL. It hasn't been our 1st choice the last couple of years and provides LESS flexibility.

Having options is great but those aren't all good options beyond in game situations. Gauthier should even be an in game injury replacement. 13 DT's total in the past 2 years. If we don't have a DI LB then I'd use one of the new draft choices.

Someone at safety? Sure Kelly might be a good in game replacement. Hallett or Hagerty not so much.

The best combination of choices decide how we use our ratio. I'm not convinced a 3rd OL is the best use, but it may be a forced decision if Wallace can't win the spot.

I guess we'll see how this shapes up during pre-season.

And I'm not arguing for or against it either, to be clear.

I just want the best OL out there and hope the coaches don't feel pidgeon-holed into making choices based on ratio. I just don't think it's necessary. Especially with the lack of depth at NI OL. We have far more import options on the roster.

If Wallace is the best, great. If Randolph is better, the ratio will be fine (and Gabe is still there if needed).

[Blue In BC]

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.

Fair points but if he's on the roster he better be starting otherwise it costs us a DI.

Randolph currently is the best non starting import OL. I don't know that will be true after TC with all the rookies. I agree he might not accept a PR spot.

The ratio reality is that a player doesn't usually stay for a 2nd or 3rd year mostly on the PR.

I take all the import OL rookies as part of that reality. If he's not starting he may be out all together. That applies to a bunch of 2nd year players that were mostly PR in 2024.

Something to watch in both practice and pre-season.  We do have a few Canadian OL coming but not sure any make the AR early.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Fair points but if he's on the roster he better be starting otherwise it costs us a DI.

Randolph currently is the best non starting import OL. I don't know that will be true after TC with all the rookies. I agree he might not accept a PR spot.

The ratio reality is that a player doesn't usually stay for a 2nd or 3rd year mostly on the PR.

I take all the import OL rookies as part of that reality. If he's not starting he may be out all together. That applies to a bunch of 2nd year players that were mostly PR in 2024.

Something to watch in both practice and pre-season.  We do have a few Canadian OL coming but not sure any make the AR early.

The other side of the coin is recognizing Wallace and keeping him happy in Wpg. so he doesn't leave at the first opportunity to walk out the door.  A key to sustaining a good CFL team is retaining a core of good  Natl. players for the better part of their careers as they've done. If he doesn't start this year they may have to promise to move on from Neufeld next season to keep Wallace interested in returning.

[Jesse]

The other side of the coin is recognizing Wallace and keeping him happy in Wpg. so he doesn't leave at the first opportunity to walk out the door.  A key to sustaining a good CFL team is retaining a core of good  Natl. players for the better part of their careers as they've done. If he doesn't start this year they may have to promise to move on from Neufeld next season to keep Wallace interested in returning.

I don't know if that enters the equation. We've let guards walk en masse, I don't think there is a route to keeping them if they've earned free agent $$$.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I don't know if that enters the equation. We've let guards walk en masse, I don't think there is a route to keeping them if they've earned free agent $$$.

If they stumble upon the next Walby, they'll need to adapt and pay market value for their O-linemen, stop the talent drain or they'll end up out of the playoffs alongside Cgy.  First to last, very fast.

[Jesse]

If they stumble upon the next Walby, they'll need to adapt and pay market value for their O-linemen, stop the talent drain or they'll end up out of the playoffs alongside Cgy.  First to last, very fast.

There's gonna be exceptions, but of course finding the next Walby is incredibly unlikely.

We've seen, time and time again, that they don't find the value in paying guards.

[theaardvark]

On the other side of things, do you want Randolph at G or T?  If he's being groomed for Bryant's spot, isn't playing him at G not going to further his development at T?

Sure in a pinch a player can move from OG to OT, but they play one spot or the other for a reason.  They are very different positions to play.

Going from G to T is a lot different from going from L to R.  Do we want guys that are versatile?  Of course.  Do we want guys to specialize and get as good as they can at one spot?  I think that a concern as well.

Is having Randolph at LG (he filled in for Neuf at RG last year) a long term or short term fix?  If he gets outperformed at the tackle spot by a newcomer while he's concentrating on winning the LG spot, what does that do? 

I think the bext option is to have a solid group of NATs to play the interior, and have your Imps play the T spots.  The footwork, the coverage, the blocking are so different for both, I'm not sure the development path should include both for the best result.

[Blue In BC]

The question about OL is complicated. I think we have more import OL being looked at this TC than I remember in the past. Something like 8 pure import rookies and a couple of holdovers.

Whether they are capable at G, T or both is unknown to us posters.

I think expecting that Bryant MIGHT not play in 2026 has prompted a serious look of OL to hold on the PR as potential replacements in 2026.

Whether one of them actually starts inside at guard exists as an option. Nobody is discounting that Randolph has the edge but that's a lot of competition. There may still be more added for rookie camp.

Let the best player win out. I say that more about O'Shea not just sticking to current players because of his loyalty if a newbie shows more.

[Blueforlife]

The banter here is incredible and will be so interesting to see how it pans out

I see an average OL that will morph into a above average one come fall

Key is health

[CrazyCanuck89]

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.

You took the same amount of offensive linemen that you did defensive linemen.

If anything WILL linebacker could become a Canadian position.

[CrazyCanuck89]

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.

The linebacker position is SLB, Kramdi will play there again.

With the drafting of Shay, Smith and Novak, WLB may also go Canadian.

[TecnoGenius]

On the other side of things, do you want Randolph at G or T?  If he's being groomed for Bryant's spot, isn't playing him at G not going to further his development at T?

Is having Randolph at LG (he filled in for Neuf at RG last year) a long term or short term fix?  If he gets outperformed at the tackle spot by a newcomer while he's concentrating on winning the LG spot, what does that do? 

Facts:

1. Randolph looked incredible at OG.  He was as good or better than any NAT we've had since Desjar.  And because he's an IMP he's low cost.

2. Randolph looked bad at OT.  Like really bad.  Yes, he may still dev into a good OT, but he's had a lot of dev time and that's the best he looked when under live fire?  I think everyone can already guess he's no Next Big Stan.

Considering it's home GC year, and possibly the "end of an era" with the ageing core, I don't think anyone should care at all about "what ifs" in terms of where you play Randolph.  I think you play the need you have right now, and you play the best players you can.

Since we can play 3 IMP, if that's the best line with what we've got, that's what you play, and to heck with the what if's and Randolph's future.

[TecnoGenius]

I already said we'd have 7 Canadian starters if we use 3 import OL. It hasn't been our 1st choice the last couple of years and provides LESS flexibility.

Why play the "what if" injury game, though?  Why not play the best we can today and worry about injury replacements if/when that time comes?

No other team purposely starts 8-10 NATs just to be "flexible".  They play what they're forced to, or if they're in the enviable position of having a surfeit of top-tier NATs.

[TecnoGenius]

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.

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.

You guys make a great point.  Probably the most important point yet.  That's why I love this forum, at least posters who post content and ideas rather than snark.

If Wallace gets LG then we have no 7th for jumbo sets / backup.  And we love our jumbo sets.  The only time we didn't dress 7 NAT OL in the last forever is when injures were so bad in '24 we basically ran out of OL.

This further hints that Randolph gets the LG spot because otherwise there is literally no one who can be the 7th on jumbo.  (And clearly Randolph or any other IMP doesn't dress as 7th as then that's a DI and a misuse of the AR.)

The only way this doesn't hold is if one of the brand new NAT OL guys shows good enough in TC to be the 7th on jumbo.  My odds of Randolph starting LG is now increased to 80%.

[TecnoGenius]

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". 

No.

Read my original post.  KW quote: "We'll kick the tires on that."  Kick the tires is an escalation in verbiage.  It's a level (or 3) above "is an option".

Kick the tires means "give it a try".  So clearly in TC and PS they will test out some lines with 3 IMP.  It could even mean "try it out in week 1".

This is all a vast departure from '24 (and every prior season since Bond left) when 3 IMP OL was only ever couched in terms of "because of injury".  There's been a shift in mindset.

[TecnoGenius]

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.

No one wants Eli, Randolph or Lofton enough to pay Dobson prices to lure them away.  So I have zero worries.

Eli won't be a starter without C injury.  Lofton is just another "pretty good" IMP OT of which there are many (and nobody wanted him when we signed him).

Randolph is a great IMP OG, of which the market for in the CFL is basically zero.  He wouldn't make the AR as an OT on any team (yet?).  Therefore he also is easy to retain.

As for '26 retirements: that can't dictate the roster in '25.  We're taking care of future retirements by bringing in more TC looks.

This may actually be the first year in a long time no one will snipe our top young NAT talent in FA.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The linebacker position is SLB, Kramdi will play there again.

With the drafting of Shay, Smith and Novak, WLB may also go Canadian.

No way, Kyrie, Jon Jones and Ayers are locked and loaded at WIL, one of which may not even survive cut down day. A rookie Natl. LB is not going to upstage any of them on a veteran team, first year's assignment is tracking down punts and making an impact on ST's, show they're a better player than Cadwallader. 

Which team do you represent?

[TecnoGenius]

No way, Kyrie, Jon Jones and Ayers are locked and loaded at WIL, one of which may not even survive cut down day. A rookie Natl. LB is not going to upstage any of them on a veteran team, first year's assignment is tracking down punts and making an impact on ST's, show they're a better player than Cadwallader. 

Kramdi did late in his rookie season, no?  There's always a chance, albeit tiny.  But that's why you take a LB in 1st round, no?

But ya, almost certainly Kyrie or some IMP gets the spot out of TC.  The most likely best-case scenario with Shay is he can save us a WILL DI by mid-season.  And that would still be very valuable.

[Jesse]

No.

Read my original post.  KW quote: "We'll kick the tires on that."  Kick the tires is an escalation in verbiage.  It's a level (or 3) above "is an option".

Kick the tires means "give it a try".  So clearly in TC and PS they will test out some lines with 3 IMP.  It could even mean "try it out in week 1".

This is all a vast departure from '24 (and every prior season since Bond left) when 3 IMP OL was only ever couched in terms of "because of injury".  There's been a shift in mindset.

I can't go along with this.

I'm open to anything happening on the OL (I just want the best version of the team), but you can not break down this quote to mean anything at all.

I give the edge to Randolph because of experience and bodies we have on the roster, not a throwaway quote. This tells us nothing.

[Blue In BC]

Why play the "what if" injury game, though?  Why not play the best we can today and worry about injury replacements if/when that time comes?

No other team purposely starts 8-10 NATs just to be "flexible".  They play what they're forced to, or if they're in the enviable position of having a surfeit of top-tier NATs.

The forum is a what if conversation. I would disagree that teams don't look towards being flexible. Do you seriously think we couldn't have found a better import DT than starting Thomas? Starting him and others allowed having and using more imports in rotation ( non DI's ) all across the defence.

Having depth / flexibility allows using players in various ways, not only keeping them fresh but using them where they will perform the best. Thomas is a bad example because that's more of a loyalty issue with O'Shea than a desire to have flexibility.

For every extra Canadian starting we had an import that were non DI's and no starters. We used them to keep others fresh and to throw more defensive looks into the game plan.

[markf]

Any opinions on which version of the o line was best, last season?

Tricky to figure out.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Any opinions on which version of the o line was best, last season?

Tricky to figure out.

Too many variables, with Dobson gone the ingredients are no longer the same. Wallace looked good starting for Neufeld as did Randolph in the same position.  With 10 Import O-linemen coming to TC there is going to be a lot of competition for spots, in the end they can only retain 4-6 in total, so likely to be a surprise or two in store. Hopefully Stanley's future replacement rises to the top and becomes evident.

[Blue In BC]

Kramdi did late in his rookie season, no?  There's always a chance, albeit tiny.  But that's why you take a LB in 1st round, no?

But ya, almost certainly Kyrie or some IMP gets the spot out of TC.  The most likely best-case scenario with Shay is he can save us a WILL DI by mid-season.  And that would still be very valuable.

Our LB's are very versatile and I think we have one as a DI regardless on the progression of Shay. Shay be fighting for a chance to start at WIL in 2025. We'll see how / which of our imports play this year. IMO Wilson is at risk for 2026 and he may not survive all 2025. Age, injuries and SMS will all come into play.

J.Jones was signed for 2 years IIRC and for a decent salary which might even be higher than Wilson. He's 4 years younger and hasn't the same level of injury history.

Wilson is very good when healthy but he is a question mark in that sense. Ayers may be considered to have more upside and he could win the role as a DI. We've also added more import LB's to TC roster, not to mention 3 Canadian draft choices. Direction in 2026 might be part of the discussion.

Nothing is certain.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Our LB's are very versatile and I think we have one as a DI regardless on the progression of Shay. Shay be fighting for a chance to start at WIL in 2025. We'll see how / which of our imports play this year. IMO Wilson is at risk for 2026 and he may not survive all 2025. Age, injuries and SMS will all come into play.

J.Jones was signed for 2 years IIRC and for a decent salary which might even be higher than Wilson. He's 4 years younger and hasn't the same level of injury history.


Nothing is certain.

I think that was Tony Jones, no?  They will definitely keep the WIL around that can also play MLB, Ayers might be too small and Wilson perhaps too fragile.

[Blue In BC]

I think that was Tony Jones, no?  They will definitely keep the WIL around that can also play MLB, Ayers might be too small and Wilson perhaps too fragile.

Tony Jones signed for 2 years at $117K. J.Jones signed for 1 year at $120K. J. Jones is more likely a player that could switch to MLB if necessary. I think that is more likely than Wilson switching. I'm not sure about Ayers but he's on an ELC.

Regardless, I don't know we'll have a traditional MLB on every defensive snap. We rotate players in and out so often and use a 34 formation at times. We probably see an extra LB looking like an extra DE speed guy in certain formations.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Tony Jones signed for 2 years at $117K. J.Jones signed for 1 year at $120K. J. Jones is more likely a player that could switch to MBL if necessary. I think that is more likely than Wilson switching. I'm not sure about Ayers but he's on an ELC.

Regardless, I don't know we'll have a traditional MLB on every defensive snap. We rotate players in and out so often and use a 34 formation at times. We probably see an extra LB looking like an extra DE speed guy in certain formations.

You're probably right, Jon Jones is 5'-11" 230 lbs, almost identical to Tony Jones, 6'-0" 235 lbs.

[BomberFan73]

Tony Jones signed for 2 years at $117K. J.Jones signed for 1 year at $120K. J. Jones is more likely a player that could switch to MLB if necessary. I think that is more likely than Wilson switching. I'm not sure about Ayers but he's on an ELC.

Regardless, I don't know we'll have a traditional MLB on every defensive snap. We rotate players in and out so often and use a 34 formation at times. We probably see an extra LB looking like an extra DE speed guy in certain formations.

If we're looking for a versatile LB it's Smith.  He played as a DB in highschool, can play DE too, and thrives on Teams.  It's going to be a real battle between him & Shay, hopefully they both find a way to make the roster.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

If we're looking for a versatile LB it's Smith. He played as a DB in highschool, can play DE too, and thrives on Teams.  It's going to be a real battle between him & Shay, hopefully they both find a way to make the roster.

....and by "Smith" you're referring to who?

[BomberFan73]

....and by "Smith" you're referring to who?

Our 2nd pick this year:

https://www.bluebombers.com/2025/05/02/1st-10-it-seemed-like-it-could-be-a-good-fit-and-im-super-excited-they-picked-me/

[TecnoGenius]

I can't go along with this.

I'm open to anything happening on the OL (I just want the best version of the team), but you can not break down this quote to mean anything at all.

Maybe, maybe not.  I love watching and studying tone and tenor, and reading between the lines, especially on changes in verbiage.

MOS & KW are remarkably consistent on tone and verbiage, at least over the last 6 seasons.  Any deviation from that baseline perks my ears up.

3 years ago there would no chance in a million years KW would be saying he'd kick the tires on a 3 IMP OL!!

MOS (and to a lesser extent, KW) are so tight-lipped and secretive as a general rule that if you don't try to read between the lines you'll never be able to predict a single thing regarding this team!  You'd just have to sit there and wait until it actually happens.  Where's the fun in that?

[TecnoGenius]

The forum is a what if conversation. I would disagree that teams don't look towards being flexible. Do you seriously think we couldn't have found a better import DT than starting Thomas? Starting him and others allowed having and using more imports in rotation ( non DI's ) all across the defence.

That's a good point.  However, now you're implying WFC purposely starts lesser NAT players above the ratio in order to gain flexibility on IMP substitutions?

If that's true, then not only does WFC not use the 23-snap cheat-code to get more IMP snaps, but they actually do the antithesis of that by self-imposing more NAT snaps??

So the league and (almost) every team thinks maximizing IMP snaps gets you an on-field advantage, but for some reason WFC thinks maximizing NAT snaps does the same?

One has got to be wrong.  And since IMP-heavy TOR cleaned our clocks in the GC, maybe it's WFC.

[TecnoGenius]

Any opinions on which version of the o line was best, last season?

I would say the "desired" line-up was great at season end.  But I would say the 3 IMP OL injury-forced one was just as good!

So

STAN DOBSON KO-MAN RANDOLPH LOFTON

was as good as

STAN DOBSON KO-MAN NEUF LOFTON   (the GC line-up)

and I have no doubt

STAN RANDOLPH KO-MAN NEUF LOFTON

will be a very good OL in week 1.  I really look forward to seeing what Randolph can do in run-block as his gaps are Brady's favorite weak-side holes.  Wallace is 6th and keeps dev'ing getting tons of reps as TE and jumbo, coming across to road grade an A-gap.

I also want to see more emphasis on great FB play.  Our FB usage and effectiveness kind of went away in '24 (ya, injuries).  The Seal wasted a DI but even he was more effective.  And no one was as good at is as Mike Miller.

[Blue In BC]

That's a good point.  However, now you're implying WFC purposely starts lesser NAT players above the ratio in order to gain flexibility on IMP substitutions?

If that's true, then not only does WFC not use the 23-snap cheat-code to get more IMP snaps, but they actually do the antithesis of that by self-imposing more NAT snaps??

So the league and (almost) every team thinks maximizing IMP snaps gets you an on-field advantage, but for some reason WFC thinks maximizing NAT snaps does the same?

One has got to be wrong.  And since IMP-heavy TOR cleaned our clocks in the GC, maybe it's WFC.

I think we rotate more Canadians as part of the development looking forward.  In order to do that there is some trade off.  It's one way to keep the roster fresher during the game, because so many players are seeing the field. So pros and cons.

Would Kramdi have ever become a starter if we stuck with a traditional import at SAM.  He struggled in the early going.

This year I think we see our rookie Canadian LB's see the field on defence as they progress. Will they immediately be better than our import DI choices?

I ask again, why we didn't find a better import DT than Thomas getting so many reps. Obviously our DL was an issue all year but Schmekel got some valuable reps.

I would have preferred a starting import DT with Schmekel getting more of the reps Thomas took as an example.   I would have preferred a better import getting 50% or more of the reps instead of Thomas.

In 2025 we'll probably see Lawson starting at DT but it may not be an option to start an import due to our ratio changes. We not even have an import as a DI.

BTW. If a team is starting more than 7 Canadians, there are imports on the roster that are not DI's that will see the field. It was difficult to determine which imports were DI's and which weren't last year.  Kicker and returner were 2 of our 4.

[markf]

I would say the "desired" line-up was great at season end.  But I would say the 3 IMP OL injury-forced one was just as good!

So

STAN DOBSON KO-MAN RANDOLPH LOFTON

was as good as

STAN DOBSON KO-MAN NEUF LOFTON  (the GC line-up)

and I have no doubt

STAN RANDOLPH KO-MAN NEUF LOFTON

will be a very good OL in week 1.

Thanks... good answer... you are a live wire (in a good way) on this forum.

I think I will watch the Grey cup... I'm curious to see (if I can) how, why the O line got demolished in that game.

[theaardvark]

Still thing Wallace is a starter this year, whether it is at LG, or giving Neuf back the 6th man spot to lengthen his career, he needs to get starters reps.

No averse to carrying 4 NAT / 3 imp  Olinemen on the AR.  Bryant Neuf Koman Wallace Lofton/(other) with Randolf Eli backing up / jumbo.

Hoping at least one of the new Oline shows up ready to compete for Lofton's spot, or be Bryants heir. 

[Blue In BC]

Still thing Wallace is a starter this year, whether it is at LG, or giving Neuf back the 6th man spot to lengthen his career, he needs to get starters reps.

No averse to carrying 4 NAT / 3 imp  Olinemen on the AR.  Bryant Neuf Koman Wallace Lofton/(other) with Randolf Eli backing up / jumbo.

Hoping at least one of the new Oline shows up ready to compete for Lofton's spot, or be Bryants heir. 

We aren't going to DI an OL. If Randolph is on the AR he better be starting.

[Pete]

Thanks... good answer... you are a live wire (in a good way) on this forum.

I think I will watch the Grey cup... I'm curious to see (if I can) how, why the O line got demolished in that game.

in the grey cup I don't think we set up the oline to be successful. For some reason beyond me Buck decided to not utilize the run game. He decided before the game started that Toronto's dline would dominate and went heavily into pass mode. As a result argos were able to tee off.

[Jesse]

in the grey cup I don't think we set up the oline to be successful. For some reason beyond me Buck decided to not utilize the run game. He decided before the game started that Toronto's dline would dominate and went heavily into pass mode. As a result argos were able to tee off.

Seemingly every time we play a good DL. We've struggled for several seasons against Montreal and Toronto.

[TecnoGenius]

I think I will watch the Grey cup... I'm curious to see (if I can) how, why the O line got demolished in that game.

GC OL actually did very well.  They aren't the reason we lost, except maybe the lack of .5s extra delay that would have saved Zach's finger.

I don't remember the pre-injury sack or pressure count, but it was low.  Zach generally had the time he needed for our pass-mostly plan.

The game is still aggravating for me to watch, but it's not quite as painful.  I just hate all the little things most players/units took turns screwing up.  Eli IP.  Kenny heel out.  Letting The Pirate dink & dunk the whole field several times.  Aggravating.

[TecnoGenius]

No averse to carrying 4 NAT / 3 imp  Olinemen on the AR.  Bryant Neuf Koman Wallace Lofton/(other) with Randolf Eli backing up / jumbo.

We aren't going to DI an OL. If Randolph is on the AR he better be starting.

Yes BinBC, No team will ever DI an OL.  Unless there is dire multiple injuries week(s) before and all that's left on the PR is IMPs.

The 7th doesn't have to be big or good.  If anything, a lesser, smaller, faster OL makes a better 7th for jumbo.  Funny, but Eli is basically the ideal 7th.  And he can backup C.

We know for a fact Randolph can play as well as Neufeld at RG.  So probably LG as well.  Wallace, no matter how good his progression, is still a question mark.  He looked ok, but not at "starting NAT" level during the injury-weeks in '24.  Therefore, if you have the ratio room, you start Randolph and keep Wallace as 6th.

Maybe it changes by mid-season and Wallace can start.  That might be the most optimistic scenario.

[TecnoGenius]

Seemingly every time we play a good DL. We've struggled for several seasons against Montreal and Toronto.

Good observation.  Maybe that's why the teams who think they'll be challenging us in the post-season put priority (and money) into their DLs.  If you want to beat us since '21, you need a league-top DL.

TOR did it, then MTL, then TOR again, and our main W rivals (BC,SSK) also do it.

The way to counter is to field a league top-3 OL, keep the top run game, and improve the short-pass game.  Can we do these things this year?

[theaardvark]

We aren't going to DI an OL. If Randolph is on the AR he better be starting.

Still don't understand this.  If we "DI and OL" so that we can start a NAT at Oline, we basically pick up an extra DI, no?  If the 7 Oline is 3 Imp and 4 NAT, does it matter who among them starts and who backs up?

[Blue In BC]

Still don't understand this.  If we "DI and OL" so that we can start a NAT at Oline, we basically pick up an extra DI, no?  If the 7 Oline is 3 Imp and 4 NAT, does it matter who among them starts and who backs up?

Yes it matters. It determines whether he can replace a Canadian or just an import.

The number of imports on a roster is a finite number. You can start 10 Canadians and the number of imports allowed doesn't change.

If you start 10 Canadians as we did in 2024, we had some imports that weren't DI's but were just non starting imports.

Castillo, Whitehead ( or another returner earlier and the season ), Cole or Bridges and Griffin were probably noted as the DI's. The rosters never really made it exactly clear game to game.

Our imports on the DL were probably the extra non starting imports that weren't DI's.

Normally the roster has:

16 starting imports ( whether you start them or not ) based on number of Canadians starting

1 starting QB of 3 that are a separate classification and may technically be any nationality

4 DI's as I noted above.

That means 23 imports are on the roster if all 3 QB's are imports.

Barring injuries that's how many we would have had in any game last year.

We choose to start as many as 10 Canadians. That just meant of the ( 16 group ), 3 could have started and played every snap if we choose to do so.

Let's use Cole as an example. Again, clarity on who were DI's or not is important. If he was a DI, he could come in and replace any import on defence on any down.

If he didn't hold the classification of DI, he could come in on any down replacing a Canadian. For example 34 defence with 3 import DL and 3 import LB's.  Or if Kramdi was injured or needed a break, he could have gone in at SAM or some combination of moves involving Ford as the other starting Canadian.

So no we don't gain a DI which is a fixed number. It all falls to who we declare as DI's or not.

If we're starting 8 or more Canadians, then Randolph could be on the AR and not start and not be declared a DI. If we did that, would he be just injury insurance or rotated in frequently?

As I tried to point out the value of a non DI import being able to be rotated in frequently. Whereas an OL of any nationality is less likely to be a rotational player. OL needs continuity.

My point is that for an extra import that is not seeing the field frequently is a poor use of the roster ratio.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Yes it matters. It determines whether he can replace a Canadian or just an import.

The number of imports on a roster is a finite number. You can start 10 Canadians and the number of imports allowed doesn't change.

If you start 10 Canadians as we did in 2024, we had some imports that weren't DI's but were just non starting imports.

Castillo, Whitehead ( or another returner earlier and the season ), Cole or Bridges and Griffin were probably noted as the DI's. The rosters never really made it exactly clear game to game.

Our imports on the DL were probably the extra non starting imports that weren't DI's.

Normally the roster has:

16 starting imports ( whether you start them or not ) based on number of Canadians starting

1 starting QB of 3 that are a separate classification and may technically be any nationality

4 DI's as I noted above.

That means 23 imports are on the roster if all 3 QB's are imports.

Barring injuries that's how many we would have had in any game last year.

We choose to start as many as 10 Canadians. That just meant of the ( 16 group ), 3 could have started and played every snap if we choose to do so.

Let's use Cole as an example. Again, clarity on who were DI's or not is important. If he was a DI, he could come in and replace any import on defence on any down.

If he didn't hold the classification of DI, he could come in on any down replacing a Canadian. For example 34 defence with 3 import DL and 3 import LB's.  Or if Kramdi was injured or needed a break, he could have gone in at SAM or some combination of moves involving Ford as the other starting Canadian.

So no we don't gain a DI which is a fixed number. It all falls to who we declare as DI's or not.

If we're starting 8 or more Canadians, then Randolph could be on the AR and not start and not be declared a DI. If we did that, would he be just injury insurance or rotated in frequently?

As I tried to point out the value of a non DI import being able to be rotated in frequently. Whereas an OL of any nationality is less likely to be a rotational player. OL needs continuity.

My point is that for an extra import that is not seeing the field frequently is a poor use of the roster ratio.

Thanks for the explanation, but what a bunch of jibber-jabber, it's time to simplify the game and get rid of the DI rules that favour playing Americans over Canadians.  It's our game and it's time we put on our big boy pants and show we can compete on the same stage. There are no longer positions Natl's. can not fill and we've demonstrated in the past decade that often the best coach, GM or player in the CFL at any given position can be Canadian. The Natl. talent coming into the league now is more abundant and at a higher skill level than it's ever been, great athletes should no longer be confined to playing ST for the entirety of their career.

Worse yet, lately they've decided to camouflage this rule by no longer revealing it's usage on the depth chart along with the other designations they've come up with that favour playing American players over Canadian, so even the most ardent follower is confused by the rules deployment.  Drop back to a fixed ratio and expand the game day roster to whatever is needed, it would be a great mandate if new Comish Stewie. worked on simplification by eliminating loopholes and needless crutches that have plagued the league for so long.

[Blue In BC]

It's not that complicated and DI's don't favour playing Americans over Canadians. In fact it's the exact opposite. The examples I mentioned favour playing Canadians over imports which become the back ups or rotational players.

However I agree, I'd scrap the Nationalized Import or whatever they call it. I'd scrap the Global designation which does favour them over Canadians on the roster. Granted it's difficult to find good Canadian kickers but this is not the solution.

[TecnoGenius]

Thanks for the explanation, but what a bunch of jibber-jabber

BinBC's example is only jibber-jabber because we start more than the required 7 NATs.  It's WFC's fault for doing so.  Almost no team ever starts over the 7 (including WFC of yore), unless forced to by a rash of injuries.

When original 7 NAT / DI rules were instituted, no one thought anyone would ever start more than 7.  It would be suicide to start more than 7.  For 2 reasons: IMPs were always generally better than NATs, and top-tier NATs were more pricey so you couldn't afford more than 7 even if you wanted to.

It's only the last 2 seasons or so we've seen WFC regularly starting 8, 9, 10.

Yes, NAT talent has improved recently, and we seem to have a penchant for acquiring the top ones.  Yes, there's nothing wrong with this.  But that's why the weird not-a-DI-IMP-nonstarter thing even came up.  Otherwise it simply wouldn't be a thing.

Worse yet, lately they've decided to camouflage this rule by no longer revealing it's usage on the depth chart along with the other designations they've come up with that favour playing American players over Canadian, so even the most ardent follower is confused by the rules deployment.

Once again, blame the WFC.  They are the only team that doesn't make it clear on the chart who is a DI (aka DA), let alone all the other newer, stupider classifications like NA,DNA,DNS.  Every other team lists the DI (required by rule!), and most show their DNA/DNS.

You can fix this instantly by requiring all teams to put on their public chart the DAs, NAs, etc.  And not just the secret "it's ours and you can't see it, it's the Coke formula darnit! (TM)" (-Junkie) chart provided to the league!  This information should be made public so at least the uber fans have a slim chance of figuring out what's going on.  It's all so stupid.

I believe BinBC's interpretation of the not-a-DI-IMP-nonstarter substitution rules (i.e. they are basically a NAT), however I will also point out that a plain reading of the actual ratio DI substitution rule doesn't say or provide for any of that.  That makes the whole situation even more frustrating.  (Again, only because WFC is insane enough to start >7 NATs.)

[TecnoGenius]

You want some OL fun, spin up the GC and go to 1Q0:20 -- the 1st TD, by Wilson sneak.  Watch the edge seal and Wallace just road-grade over DE Hansen.  That dude towers over even the other OL, and he seems twice as wide.  Just a beast of a man, man-handling the D like they are 90lb weaklings.

Great fun!  And that's the only reason Wilson's sneak got a 3Y TD.

P.S. Great sneak plan drawn up, probably by M.Miller!

P.P.S. I'm rewatching to focus on the OL due to discussion here, and in the entire 1Q OL was 100% solid, Zach clean, 1-2 good Brady runs.  The only negative I could see was bad blocking and near zero gain on Brady's 1st run.  And the Eli IP.

[Blueforlife]

Having a strong roster of Canadians, including extra starters is the foundation of any good CFL club. It helps when you have injuries, gives ratio flexibility and saves money for other stars.  I believe the way we have managed our roster has brought us great success.  The final benefit of more Canadians is the strong community spirit and hope it gives to local kids that want a career in football.

[VictorRomano]

You want some OL fun, spin up the GC and go to 1Q0:20 -- the 1st TD, by Wilson sneak.  Watch the edge seal and Wallace just road-grade over DE Hansen.  That dude towers over even the other OL, and he seems twice as wide.  Just a beast of a man, man-handling the D like they are 90lb weaklings.

I got a high-five from him last year after a game, and I'm not a small guy.  I look like a toddler next to him.

[TecnoGenius]

I got a high-five from him last year after a game, and I'm not a small guy.  I look like a toddler next to him.

I think KW was speaking directly about Wallace when he said in that last presser that (paraphrase) "the young guys have to learn / improve on pass-pro, that's where most of them are lacking out of college".

So that would seem to be the only impediment left to making Wallace a very good NAT OG starter.  KW seemed to show great faith and hope, so I too have great faith and hope.  It will really work out well for us if can pull it off!

[TecnoGenius]

Having a strong roster of Canadians, including extra starters is the foundation of any good CFL club. It helps when you have injuries, gives ratio flexibility and saves money for other stars.  I believe the way we have managed our roster has brought us great success.

This is so true.  The Can Mafia way of drafting and dev'ing NATs has been probably the best in the league, since around the time Bond left.  Our success may depend heavily on them keeping that up (especially with cracks showing the last 2 years).

[TecnoGenius]

From the camp thread:

From Derek Taylor

Micah Vanterpool having some very good 1-on-1 reps at both guard and tackle. Bombers GM Kyle Walters brought up the possibility of going American at guard this season. Gotta believe Vanterpool is who he was thinking about.

I would be massively shocked if Vanterpool leap-frogged Randolph to snag the LG spot.  Randolph has way more starts and live snaps under his belt, and proved he can do it well.

The only world where you give it to Vanterpool, IMHO, is one in which you are grooming Randolph solely for the purpose of replacing an OT.  Then again, maybe that's what we're doing with Vanterpool!

It's nice to have this IMP flexibility, even if it's anti-ratio.  We have really sucked at dev'ing IMP talent, and never seem to find/dev the "next one".  It would be nice to buck that trend with 1 (or 2!) of these guys.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

From the camp thread:

I would be massively shocked if Vanterpool leap-frogged Randolph to snag the LG spot.  Randolph has way more starts and live snaps under his belt, and proved he can do it well.

The only world where you give it to Vanterpool, IMHO, is one in which you are grooming Randolph solely for the purpose of replacing an OT.  Then again, maybe that's what we're doing with Vanterpool!

It's nice to have this IMP flexibility, even if it's anti-ratio.  We have really sucked at dev'ing IMP talent, and never seem to find/dev the "next one".  It would be nice to buck that trend with 1 (or 2!) of these guys.

Or a more straight-forward take would be he is talking about starting the best guard as assessed in training camp and pre-season no matter who it is.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

From the camp thread:

I would be massively shocked if Vanterpool leap-frogged Randolph to snag the LG spot.  Randolph has way more starts and live snaps under his belt, and proved he can do it well.

The only world where you give it to Vanterpool, IMHO, is one in which you are grooming Randolph solely for the purpose of replacing an OT.  Then again, maybe that's what we're doing with Vanterpool!

It's nice to have this IMP flexibility, even if it's anti-ratio.  We have really sucked at dev'ing IMP talent, and never seem to find/dev the "next one".  It would be nice to buck that trend with 1 (or 2!) of these guys.

The two qualities I noticed about Vanterpool in last years pre-season games, he was both big and slow.

[Blue In BC]

The two qualities I noticed about Vanterpool in last years pre-season games, he was both big and slow.

We seem to have more import OL in the rookie camp than in previous years. It will take awhile for the dust to settle to see which make any sort of roster. At most we see a 3rd make the AR and 2 make the PR

[TecnoGenius]

Or a more straight-forward take would be he is talking about starting the best guard as assessed in training camp and pre-season no matter who it is.

If Vanterpool was the best, he would have gotten all those starts in '24, not Randolph.  I'm not sure why 1 off-season would change their relative ability.  (Assuming of course at the time V wasn't nursing some medium-term injury.)

However, anything is possible.  It just struck me as very odd that DT, the guy with more inside skinny than we could ever hope for, and a fairly good football mind, would even suggest it could be V's spot, like he's the early favorite.  Weird.

But hey, if V is better than R, and we know R is pretty darn good, that can only be great news!!  Maybe we will find our future Big Stan in-house.

[dd]

O lineman the calibre of Stanley Bryant are very few and far between.

I know what you're saying, maybe we'll find our next Offensive Tackle in-house, but there is nobody on our current squad anywhere near the calibre of Stanley Bryant, let alone when he was in his prime. Stan is in a league of his own.

[Jesse]

Well, it's Wallace and Eli rotating snaps with the #1 group, not Randolph or Vanterpool.

https://3downnation.com/2025/05/11/leaner-wiser-gabe-wallace-wants-starting-job-really-badly-with-winnipeg-blue-bombers/

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Well, it's Wallace and Eli rotating snaps with the #1 group, not Randolph or Vanterpool.

https://3downnation.com/2025/05/11/leaner-wiser-gabe-wallace-wants-starting-job-really-badly-with-winnipeg-blue-bombers/

For now. I wouldn't count out Vanterpool yet - he could easily win the job once the real test begins. The good thing about playing the Riders back to back in the pre-season is they have a rock solid defensive line. Gabe Wallace can talk all he wants about how much he's improved and how comfortable he is. Both are probably true - but can he do the job from May 24 against a good defense? We'll see.

[Jesse]

For now. I wouldn't count out Vanterpool yet - he could easily win the job once the real test begins. The good thing about playing the Riders back to back in the pre-season is they have a rock solid defensive line. Gabe Wallace can talk all he wants about how much he's improved and how comfortable he is. Both are probably true - but can he do the job from May 24 against a good defense? We'll see.

I just don't think he'll have the opportunity.

Preseason had no bearing on the OL decisions last year. The group we saw in the first week of training camp was the group we saw in week 1 despite them never playing together in the preseason.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I just don't think he'll have the opportunity.

Preseason had no bearing on the OL decisions last year. The group we saw in the first week of training camp was the group we saw in week 1 despite them never playing together in the preseason.

You're right if Wallace plays at a high level right now. It's a big if. Vanterpool and the rest of the Americans are in the mix if he doesn't. Training camp means different things in different years for different players. They really like Wallace as a long term option, I think. Whether he is ready to start full time in three weeks is what they're looking at. He absolutely couldn't last year. In order to make that determination you've got to play him in that spot with the other starters. It's preferred outcome A, I'm sure. But I'm not convinced he's ready and I think they absolutely will look at others there before training camp is over.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

You're right if Wallace plays at a high level right now. It's a big if. Vanterpool and the rest of the Americans are in the mix if he doesn't. Training camp means different things in different years for different players. They really like Wallace as a long term option, I think. Whether he is ready to start full time in three weeks is what they're looking at. He absolutely couldn't last year. In order to make that determination you've got to play him in that spot with the other starters. It's preferred outcome A, I'm sure. But I'm not convinced he's ready and I think they absolutely will look at others there before training camp is over.

Sounds like Wallace spent the winter in Wpg. working out with Neufeld and Kola, that's a pretty good sign he might be willing to put down deeper roots in Wpg. if they offer to pay him fairly to stay once his ELC contract expires.

[TecnoGenius]

For now. I wouldn't count out Vanterpool yet - he could easily win the job once the real test begins.

What's the rationale for pegging Vanterpool as getting the spot instead of Randolph?  I'm curious: if Vanterpool was better, why didn't he get the nod for all of those starts in '24 that Randolph got?

[Sir Blue and Gold]

What's the rationale for pegging Vanterpool as getting the spot instead of Randolph?  I'm curious: if Vanterpool was better, why didn't he get the nod for all of those starts in '24 that Randolph got?

Could absolutely be Randolph too but I think Randolph's frame is slightly better suited to tackle. Putting aside play for now and just looking at fit - we know the Bombers love to play simple along the line and maul - especially in the interior.

Liam Dobson 6 foot 3, 340
Micah Vanterpool, 6 foot 6, 315
Kendall Randolph, 6 foot 4, 300

Given what we try to do in the run game we probably don't want to lose 40 pounds at left guard. Especially left because for the last 3-4 yards we run guard-tackle left most often in short yardage. As for why Vanterpool might be better this year? Year two for American offensive lineman is a big deal too. Vanterpool was a bit more raw than Randolph coming out of Hawaii compared to Randolph at Alabama. Not knocking Randolph at all - great player (also in year two I should point out). He's probably OT3 right now which is important especially when you factor in the age of our current tackles. And another American could jump off the page - but we know the slow drip approach that O'Shea likes and Vanterpool being here last year and dressing for a couple games gives him a big advantage with this coaching staff.

[TecnoGenius]

Liam Dobson 6 foot 3, 340
Micah Vanterpool, 6 foot 6, 315
Kendall Randolph, 6 foot 4, 300

By that token, then, Eli won't get the job either:

Eli 6'4 305

Which now strikes me as very strange since Eli when starting (LG?) was beating badly like he was badly undersized.  Yet Randolph excelled at RG in his starts.  With the same body type.  And I never once thought "Randolph is too small".  Weird.

Could it be that RG requires less beef than LG?  I kind of figured they were similar to play.  But you are right, the run game (for most teams) runs through the weak side, which is more often left.  Maybe you need more beef on the left side.

For fun:
Neufeld 6'4 300

So these 3 guys are basically all clones.  And I've never thought Neuf was "undersized".  Double weird!

Lastly:
Wallace 6'6 340

LOL.  Ya, if you can get him rockin' and rollin' you'll have the next Desjar.

[Pigskin]

The Bombers have Neufled listed as 6'6" 316.

[Jesse]

Ya'll talking about men weighing 300+ lbs and debating if there's a difference between 300 and 315 and 340. These guys are going to go up and down by 20 lbs over the course of the season. They probably weigh in at 305 in the morning and 320 at night.

What do they do on the field is the only question.

[Pigskin]

Ya'll talking about men weighing 300+ lbs and debating if there's a difference between 300 and 315 and 340. These guys are going to go up and down by 20 lbs over the course of the season. They probably weigh in at 305 in the morning and 320 at night.

What do they do on the field is the only question.

I also don't believe some of the info on the CFL/Bomber sites. The Bomber roster shows Eli at 287 right now.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I also don't believe some of the info on the CFL/Bomber sites. The Bomber roster shows Eli at 287 right now.

He's lost a lot of weight since he first showed up in 2019, originally he had quite the gut.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Ya'll talking about men weighing 300+ lbs and debating if there's a difference between 300 and 315 and 340. These guys are going to go up and down by 20 lbs over the course of the season. They probably weigh in at 305 in the morning and 320 at night.

What do they do on the field is the only question.

You're right, Jesse. It's the play that's the most important - 100%.

And pass pro is part of the equation too and that changes the thinking.

On the other hand, if you're trying to play bully ball and wear down fronts in the run game, it's also true that heavier lineman (particularly guards) work best for that, all things equal.

[BomberFan73]

Hmmmm. Two import OL released and 2 more added. Lofton not practising. Also another DL added while Logan moved to 1 game IR.

Names?

[TecnoGenius]

They probably weigh in at 305 in the morning and 320 at night.

Like Poop Johnson!  Oh wait, he was 320 then 305 post-toity...

[TecnoGenius]

The Bombers have Neufled listed as 6'6" 316.

Oops, looks like I read the wrong stat!  CFL agrees with WFC roster.  I thought he seemed bigger than 6'4!

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Names?

Added:
OL Tyler Elsbury, OL Bryaden Keim, DL Phillip Webb

Released:
OL Matt Kickel, OL Chris Walker 

[Blue In BC]

We have 2 import OL rookies prior to signing these two new ones. Obviously we still have holdovers in Randolph and Vanterpool in the competition.

For what it's worth, these new players are bigger than those that were already here. Just a guess but I wonder if they are targeted more towards T?  It also makes me wonder what the status of Lofton is injury wise. Still lots of time before any meaningful game but he hasn't been practising.

[BomberFan73]

Do we look at Noah Zerr who was released by the Riders? 
And did we release Antonio Garcia?

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

We have 2 import OL rookies prior to signing these two new ones. Obviously we still have holdovers in Randolph and Vanterpool in the competition.

For what it's worth, these new players are bigger than those that were already here. Just a guess but I wonder if they are targeted more towards T?  It also makes me wonder what the status of Lofton is injury wise. Still lots of time before any meaningful game but he hasn't been practising.

Chris Walker is a monster of a man, he was on the PR late last season and he looked even bigger than Gabe Wallace in photos, unfortunately size doesn't always equate to ability.  Lesson learned in 2012 when the Bombers had Paul Swiston 6'-9" 342 lbs and Justin Sorenson 6'-9" 324 lbs on their roster, two Natl towers that never translated into substantial playing careers.

[Blue In BC]

Do we look at Noah Zerr who was released by the Riders? 
And did we release Antonio Garcia?

I haven't heard anything about Zerr but there have been some other Canadian OL released recently as well. IIRC Garcia was suspended I assume due to not reporting. He may arrive later but he'll be behind the 8 ball.

Not sure what is going on with the OL in general. Injury to Lofton of undisclosed nature. Bodies filling in at RT and LG and revolving door on the roster with some rookies etc.

Yes size doesn't always matter but it's a nice starting point. Returning rookies from 2024 may or may not accept PR spots if they don't make the AR. So it's all a TBD.

[kkc60]

I would say Garcia is gone. He didn't report, has been in the CFL before. Probably changed his mind. As for Zerr, I absolutely would. If the Bombers are legit about going Canadian at guard, you gotta keep a few backups. Right now behind Eli is Wallace and a rookie. Obviously if injuries happen they can start an American at guard, but depth is important, especially if they want to carry 7 OL.

[Pete]

Do we look at Noah Zerr who was released by the Riders? 
And did we release Antonio Garcia?

kiss of death..whenever we say they should bring in a specific player Walters/O'Shea never do. It's like they can't acknowledge other opinions (ok that's likely a stretch but still)

[BomberFan73]

Maybe, and really, there might not be room for him here either.
But I think we could for sure use a recent cut at DE, someone with a little CFL experience. We only have Willie & now Vaughters that fit that bill.

[kkc60]

Maybe, and really, there might not be room for him here either.
But I think we could for sure use a recent cut at DE, someone with a little CFL experience. We only have Willie & now Vaughters that fit that bill.

eh, i think we have enough bodies trying to crack the squad that we are alright. What is tough though is how many DIs we have on defence.

[Blue In BC]

eh, i think we have enough bodies trying to crack the squad that we are alright. What is tough though is how many DIs we have on defence.

Castillo and Logan would have been two DI's. Logan is injured and will miss at least 1 game so another import will be a DI. That could be another receiver ( most likely ) but could also be a DB.

We didn't have " many " DI" on defence in 2024. What we had was 6 Canadians starting on offence and 8 - 10 Canadian starters overall. The back ups on offence were mostly Canadian in game.  That allowed us to have more imports on defence

[Sir Blue and Gold]

kiss of death..whenever we say they should bring in a specific player Walters/O'Shea never do. It's like they can't acknowledge other opinions (ok that's likely a stretch but still)

I don't believe it's that they can't acknowledge other opinions. After all, they bring in a handful (sometimes more than a handful) of guys with CFL experience that are new to the Bombers each off season for the start of training camp.

What they don't tend to do is airlift in guys that other teams have released once the process of the season has begun. I imagine there are many reasons for that but the primary factors are that they probably aren't a significant upgrade which is why they are available and, most importantly, it interferes with the process, development and buy-in that O'Shea believes is crucial to success.

[CrazyCanuck89]

Chris Walker is a monster of a man, he was on the PR late last season and he looked even bigger than Gabe Wallace in photos, unfortunately size doesn't always equate to ability.  Lesson learned in 2012 when the Bombers had Paul Swiston 6'-9" 342 lbs and Justin Sorenson 6'-9" 324 lbs on their roster, two Natl towers that never translated into substantial playing careers.

Sorenson started many years at centre for the BC Lions and Edmonton Eskimos.  In total he had a 9 year career.  Maybe Winnipeg just wasn't a fit for him.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

kiss of death..whenever we say they should bring in a specific player Walters/O'Shea never do. It's like they can't acknowledge other opinions (ok that's likely a stretch but still)

I think the Bombers mostly rely on their own scouting, if the player is Canadian they have collected info. on him prior to entering the league and continue to follow their career.  If a player has done well on other teams and they see them as a good fit for their organization like Mike Miller, Mercy Maston or Nick Taylor they pounce once they become available, MOS has a nose for special players with intangible qualities.

[TecnoGenius]

If a player has done well on other teams and they see them as a good fit for their organization like Mike Miller, Mercy Maston or Nick Taylor they pounce once they become available, MOS has a nose for special players with intangible qualities.

Ya, it's not that we don't do mid/late season cut pickups, it's that we don't do big splash pickups.  We're always looking for the value player: the guy who could perhaps be an all-star, but hasn't yet found the right home.

That's why we didn't pick up Lemon or Sankey in '23, or make a big play for Henoc way back when.  I expect this trend will continue as long as Mafia does.

[TecnoGenius]

Castillo and Logan would have been two DI's. Logan is injured and will miss at least 1 game so another import will be a DI. That could be another receiver ( most likely ) but could also be a DB.

If Logan doesn't play week 1, we likely put one of the returner-capable IMPs in at returner and backup REC.

That could be Case or M.Mitchell, as both have done PR/KR before (but neither well).

[Blue In BC]

So we have 2 OL spots up for grabs. All 3 import receivers and our returner. That doesn't give me great feeling of comfort at the moment.

That's not to say we don't have some very good talent but cohesion and short pre-season!!! Collaros not able to play game 1.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Ya, it's not that we don't do mid/late season cut pickups, it's that we don't do big splash pickups.  We're always looking for the value player: the guy who could perhaps be an all-star, but hasn't yet found the right home.

That's why we didn't pick up Lemon or Sankey in '23, or make a big play for Henoc way back when.  I expect this trend will continue as long as Mafia does.

Sure, they don't chase the stars because Kyle probably doesn't have the budget to land them. Those mid-season pick ups tend to be solid experienced vets that can contribute immediately, signed at bargain basement prices. 

[Pete]

Sure, they don't chase the stars because Kyle probably doesn't have the budget to land them. Those mid-season pick ups tend to be solid experienced vets that can contribute immediately, signed at bargain basement prices. 

yeah but as a fan its frustrating when we have an area of need and we see players that could make a difference go to other teams. Right now there's a few positions we could look at other teams cuts;
1. Oline Canadian . we are light and with 2 of 4 di's on specialty (kicker and kr) going import here will limit us. 
2. cdn receiver if either Demski or Clercius go down, asking Cobb, Corocan, or Gassama to replace then would be trouble.
3. Rotational de, although we need to see what we have in rookies.( I still think we should have kept Garbutt)