Official Game Day Thread - Winnipeg at BC., June 21, 2025

[Tecno]

I don't expect to see 2 RB's on the field at the same time unless that's a twist Hogan intended to implement this season.

If it was Buck, then we 100% would not see a 2-back set.  However, Hogan seems far more open to "weird" ideas, as we've already seen in game 1.  Thus, why not thrown in one special scheme just for poops and giggles?  Might happen.

[Tecno]

I don't understand Weitz instead of Bailey as the global choice. In theory we were very high on Bailey and he can't even beat out another LB choice or even another Canadian like Cobb as receiver depth.

I don't follow the GLOB situation much, and don't care too much either.  But I know that MOS generally knows what he is doing, so there's a reason for this.

Ok. So Cooley is on the AR but now we only have a 6th OL. That's not good. I would have expected Vibert to be added even though inexperienced.

<does little "I called it" dance>

The only big surprise is Cooley in a backup position on the chart for no reason, because we're starting 8 NATs.  This could be because arguably Peterson earned the "start" because of last week.  So:

1) It could just be for show and Cooley gets most snaps.
2) It could be we play Peterson unless/until BC shuts him down.
3) In any event I'd expect Cooley to get some garbage-time snaps if we can.

I don't really see us doing a 2024 TOR/CGY rotate-the-backs thing.  We don't do that.  I think we try to find the hot hand and then roll with it.

As for OL, I think we did go 1-2 games last season with only 6 OL.  Every time I held my breath all game.  It limits our jumbo, but Ike is still there.  6th + FB is enough for most of our schemes.

I didn't think they'd make these choices. I understand we need depth at RB but this seems like a high price to pay in the ratio to add a RB that isn't starting.

But it's not.  WPG under Mafia is a run-first team.  RBs often get injured, whether just for 3 snaps or for the rest of the game.  WPG absolutely cannot be left without a legit decent RB (meaning Ike doesn't count).  Imagine non-mobile Zach vs a D that knows they can pass-rush at will?

So if you know the above, and you know the history that we nearly always dress 2 RBs, and we've even shown this exact look before with McCrae or Flanders, then you should not be surprised at all.

I might be considering trading to get Augustine back if BO is going to be out longer term. That maintains the ratio.

We didn't do that before, won't do it now.  We find ways to get our decent IMP RB dressed and just roll with that.  It's nice to see some different looks and schemes anyhow.  Doesn't hurt that our backup IMP RB might be the second coming.

[ModAdmin]

Interview with Matthew Peterson...

[BomberFan73]

Didn't they laud Cooley and his blocking ability?  I'd guess he's also rostered to spell Peterson on mainly passing plays.
I hope we see a decent split on running plays though, I want to see what they both can do.
But the flipside is how do we put one on the PR if they both succeed?

[Jesse]

Didn't they laud Cooley and his blocking ability?  I'd guess he's also rostered to spell Peterson on mainly passing plays.
I hope we see a decent split on running plays though, I want to see what they both can do.
But the flipside is how do we put one on the PR if they both succeed?

MOS was very complimentary of Cooley after the preseason. A reporter tried to say that it would be tough to keep him around with how we use our ratio and his response was something like: Not at all. A guy like that, you find a way to keep him around.

[Blue In BC]

Didn't they laud Cooley and his blocking ability?  I'd guess he's also rostered to spell Peterson on mainly passing plays.
I hope we see a decent split on running plays though, I want to see what they both can do.
But the flipside is how do we put one on the PR if they both succeed?

He was reported to block very well. If both play well Cooley could be moved to 1 game IR when Oliveria returns. That said, teams have their own back up RB's and don't steal from other teams PR's.

Hopefully he has some skills as a receiver out of the backfield.

[Blue In BC]

I don't follow the GLOB situation much, and don't care too much either.  But I know that MOS generally knows what he is doing, so there's a reason for this.

<does little "I called it" dance>

The only big surprise is Cooley in a backup position on the chart for no reason, because we're starting 8 NATs.  This could be because arguably Peterson earned the "start" because of last week.  So:

1) It could just be for show and Cooley gets most snaps.
2) It could be we play Peterson unless/until BC shuts him down.
3) In any event I'd expect Cooley to get some garbage-time snaps if we can.

I don't really see us doing a 2024 TOR/CGY rotate-the-backs thing.  We don't do that.  I think we try to find the hot hand and then roll with it.

As for OL, I think we did go 1-2 games last season with only 6 OL.  Every time I held my breath all game.  It limits our jumbo, but Ike is still there.  6th + FB is enough for most of our schemes.

But it's not.  WPG under Mafia is a run-first team.  RBs often get injured, whether just for 3 snaps or for the rest of the game.  WPG absolutely cannot be left without a legit decent RB (meaning Ike doesn't count).  Imagine non-mobile Zach vs a D that knows they can pass-rush at will?

So if you know the above, and you know the history that we nearly always dress 2 RBs, and we've even shown this exact look before with McCrae or Flanders, then you should not be surprised at all.

We didn't do that before, won't do it now.  We find ways to get our decent IMP RB dressed and just roll with that.  It's nice to see some different looks and schemes anyhow.  Doesn't hurt that our backup IMP RB might be the second coming.

You should learn more about the global aspect of the roster. MOS was impressed by Bailey and he is potentially a player that can rotate at DE. Our current depth chart shows only Ayers as the back up DE.  Weitz has only played 7 games but as a LB. I'm not sure he'll play ST's.

The choice to add a 2nd global comes at the cost of a Canadian back up. With Wallace starting we may or may not have degraded the strength of the OL. OTOH we have changed the jumbo package. Neufeld was nicked and GTD last week. If the OL survives and plays well then all is good but we're one problem from starting Eli and having Thomas as the emergency OL.

Clercius had injury problems this week so adding Cobb would have been another reasonable choice instead of a 2nd global.

I don't know that Wallace is a downgrade on the OL compared to Vanterpool. If he is then Collaros is at risk and we may not see the open run lanes we had last week.

Peterson ran the ball 23 times for 150 yards. We only need a back up if he's injured so that's a risk in not having a back up.  That's the same as when BO is healthy.

Having an import RB was easier last year when we were starting 9 - 10 Canadians. So it's not the same issue.

If we don't have any injuries we should be ok but overall depth at more than RB is my concern.

[Blue In BC]

Last week. If we had an injury at OT, I would think Vanterpool slides out to T and Wallace comes in at LG. That's another depth option we lost this week. Obviously if we don't have an injury on the OL it's only a rhetorical statement.

I'm just pointing out what the cost of taking Vanterpool off the roster might be. Depth at RB is also very important and I'm not disputing that. OTOH it's all about whether we end up needing that depth or not.

The same is true about depth at DE. That doesn't reflect the decision to add Cooley and falls more on whether Bailey might have been preferable to adding Weitz. Even without an injury we don't really have the ability to have anyone rotate in to keep them fresh for the entire game. We'd probably end up using some 3 man DL more often than we might have intended.

Roster decisions are a chess game and each choice comes with pros and cons.

My fingers will be crossed that we don't sustain any injuries but that is true every game. There will always be some injuries we can fill more easily in game than others. I've pointed out where we would really struggle.

Just win the game. At worst if we lose, then lose by less than 14 points to win series with the Lions.It's early but it's a 4 point game.

[Blueforlife]

You might be the only poster that thinks he was the best choice option. Like I said we didn't need another LB but Clercius is nicked and our depth at receiver is a bit thin.

I said I liked the lineup decisions (I meant in general all of them)
I said he has shown promise
I never said he was the best choice option, sounds like you are making things up to suit your narrative
I don't mind have a lot of LBs

[Blue In BC]

I said I liked the lineup decisions (I meant in general all of them)
I said he has shown promise
I never said he was the best choice option, sounds like you are making things up to suit your narrative
I don't mind have a lot of LBs

That's not close to what I said. I don't mind having lots of LB's. I said I don't like not having any depth at DE and why Bailey would have been a more useful option. I also mentioned why a Canadian like Vibert or Cobb might have had more depth value at the moment. Every roster decision is a specific moment in time with specific needs.

Since we drafted 3 LB's this year, having a global LB is not particularly effective. Nearly any other position might provide better depth elsewhere. Karamoko as a DB for example in 2024. Whether Weitz has shown promise as a LB is somewhat moot.  Do we need 11 LB's when we only have 2 DE'S??

That's not my narrative, that's a simple math question. I've explained the choices and reasoning in full. That's beyond you just saying he has promise which is significantly debatable with limited action in 2024.

He hasn't been particularly used on ST's in the past. I don't know he will be used on ST's this week.

[Blueforlife]

That's not close to what I said. I don't mind having lots of LB's. I said I don't like not having any depth at DE and why Bailey would have been a more useful option. I also mentioned why a Canadian like Vibert or Cobb might have had more depth value at the moment. Every roster decision is a specific moment in time with specific needs.

Since we drafted 3 LB's this year, having a global LB is not particularly effective. Nearly any other position might provide better depth elsewhere. Karamoko as a DB for example in 2024. Whether Weitz has shown promise as a LB is somewhat moot.  Do we need 11 LB's when we only have 2 DE'S??

That's not my narrative, that's a simple math question. I've explained the choices and reasoning in full. That's beyond you just saying he has promise which is significantly debatable with limited action in 2024.

He hasn't been particularly used on ST's in the past. I don't know he will be used on ST's this week.

Agree up for debate if he was shown promise, I have argued he must have shown enough promise to play last year, make the team again and start.  I trust the mafia on this one.
The mention of your narrative was simply in direct response to you saying that I thought Weitz was the best choice, which I didn't say and its puzzling where you came up with that.  That was my point, looks like you missed that.  I also wanted to repeat what I said previously to ensure there my no confusion on my position.  I would appreciate it if you stopped posting things that you claim I said which I didn't. 

I also think Bailey is a good option.  Vibert and Cobb the same.

As I mentioned I like being overloaded on LBs.  We will use them.  Yes some more depth at receiver, DE and OL are viable options we might explore.  The team values extreme depth at LB which is a formula that has worked well in the past and I expect it to continue.  We are developing all this talent here, which will serve us well in years to come and helps with flexibility of looks on D, which is a pillar of our system.

I am interested in how many reps Weitz gets on D and ST.  You make some great points and have some good content to share.  Suggesting that I said he was the best option isn't true that's why I replied to you, I wasn't challeging your positon on the matter and I didn't state anything else about what you said.  We on the same page regarding the viability of other roster options.  I think these players will get game action throughout the season. Agree roster decisions are fluid and change.  This week they valued an extra Db for the matchup against BC.  2nd year players are more game ready and they fit in the way we roster our club.

Let's leave it at that.  Thanks for sharing your opinion on the subject.  A great debate!

I hope all our PR seeing action! Helps evaluate and develop.

[Blue In BC]

You said you liked the lineup decisions. That's saying those were either the best or even good decisions. Now saying your weren't saying it was the best decision is a waffle.

Keep in mind that most teams only have a choice of 2 globals to add to their AR instead of a Canadian. Last year we had a 2nd global added option BECAUSE we had so many injuries to our Canadian depth. In that sense our only option was between 2 global players on the PR. Giving credit to any or all because they got to play is a thin line.

Karamoko played in 5 games and had 2 ST's and we didn't even bother to re-sign him.

IMO Weitz will see no reps on defence this week. He has to be behind all our Canadian LB's.

Interesting comments about having and developing so many LB's. While that isn't a problem per se, the problem is that we have failed in the past couple of years to have good depth on the DL. To that end, no pressure with QB's having too many time to throw.

We added Vaughters in 2025 but depth is invisible at the moment. As mentioned Ayers is shown on the depth chart at DE. That is laughable

[markf]

I just saw the stats from last game...

Other than a few plays, the Bomber defence shut down the BC offence. No run game, no passing game.

How can Buck/Masoli  do better?

[dd]

Our defense played extremely well for the first game of the season, and their impact on the game cannot be understated. They played lights out. Can they repeat that, not sure, but I am hoping they bring the same intensity to the left coast. Lions will be ready for revenge

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Interesting comments about having and developing so many LB's. While that isn't a problem per se, the problem is that we have failed in the past couple of years to have good depth on the DL. To that end, no pressure with QB's having too many time to throw.

We added Vaughters in 2025 but depth is invisible at the moment. As mentioned Ayers is shown on the depth chart at DE. That is laughable

Not sure about this, the 2 DE's on the PR are depth, plus Woods on the 6 game, best of all they have 4 Natl. DT's that could start if needed.  If you're talking about the game day roster, you might have a valid point, but Younger had so many LB's chasing Rourke in game #1 he never knew which angle they were coming from.