OL whispers

[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.