OL whispers

[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.