OL whispers

[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/