JuranBoldenRules

Once they go to one hashmark right down the middle you and Mourtada will be ready for primetime.

Brown looked alright but I'd rather have Pipkin go in if we needed someone to actually play for a stretch. DL Pae cut by Stamps would be one I wouldn't be surprised we could see in our camp. Seem to be trying to find another rotational DL.

It will be interesting to see how the league administers the 49%ers. You could designate Bryant as one and dress another American OL. as a "starter." Bryant could "sub" for the entire game but then if one of the Canadian linemen go down in game both Bryant and the "starter" can play. I don't see there being a pool of guys that would qualify who are worth paying just to be a DI who can sub for anyone basically. Most guys in those roster spots don't have the tenure required.

Yeah...the designated 49%ers are basically gonna be Romby Bryant 2014 type guys. Guys that have the tenure but aren't good enough to start. It's going to create a class of crappy Americans holding on because they can take Canadian snaps while blocking American rookies and Canadians from getting on the roster/field. Not sure how this helps the product.

He’s not locked up. He’s in the United States. Who is judging guilt? There’s no issue with terminology it’s an accusation. But not going to help in a competitive battle for a roster spot. The Bombers owe him nothing.

It's not data collection by someone on a monitor that's the issue. It's how does the rule function. Is there any responsibility for on-field officials? Is it based on a week-to-week usage or over 18 games?

Lower incentive when less Canadians required to play and will just be an opportunity for teams out of playoffs to tank by fielding a random CIS roster.

Absolutely. But the changes they are proposing hurt American rookies and their opportunity to make it on the roster in the regular season. They favour teams keeping veteran Americans who then can be utilized in protected roster spots. The leagues stated goal is to improve consistency on rosters they lost by going down to one year contracts and grow revenue by developing the relationship between teams and their fanbases.

Interested to hear the leagues business pitch and revenue growth seen from having 1-3 extra American players on the field at a time. This whole thing is ridiculous. There’s basically nothing wrong with the ratio the way it has been aside from potentially discouraging teams from developing Canadian QB’s. Not sure why this is the fight the BOG wants to take all the way to risk a season.

There was no 7 + 1 offer from the league. It's not 7 AND, it's 7 with one spot being for an American with tenure. The first substantive offer that got the strike vote was 4 + 2, dropping the ratio to 6 players and scrapping QB designation. The offer that went to vote was 6 + 1 naturalized maintaining the 7 "Canadians" for the ratio but leaving the naturalized loophole for one spot and including starting QB's in the ratio, and then allowing a certain number of designated "naturalized" players to take some snaps in place of Canadians (the 49% rule which needs or needed a hell of a lot of refining). There are protected practice roster spots for Canadians generally, junior players and current year draft picks.

That’s kind of the problem with the fluff coverage. Who isn’t having a good camp?

The CFL does way too much navel gazing on the product and misses the big picture. Remember when they set the blocking rules on kick returns so that basically only a perfect block chest to chest was legal? They overcomplicate things to the point of stupidity. That’s my major issue with this roster rule change. How the hell do you administer these rules? Take away one DI (won’t matter anyway if all the punters are Aussies), add two Canadian roster spots and axe the ratio completely. Now the refs can call a football game instead of having subs reporting constantly, and you’ll have the same number of Canadians playing. Is anyone worried that 20 imports will play the entire game on a 46ish man roster?

If anyone signed to a contract could vote for a union contract it would be way too easy for the league/employer to bust the union. Usually it is spelled out in the CBA who is a voting member and it would be completely ridiculous if camp bodies who aren’t even vested in any of the union benefits (see the 6th round pick who’s never played who gets hurt and cut on the spot) could dictate the next CBA. Yeah they could, but realistically the league wasn’t offering much monetarily. The players will end up paying for the increased benefits if their cost grows faster than league revenue.

The PA might want to consider having a more representative bargaining committee in the future. Having a bunch of American players leading the way with the administrators probably led to this. Don't want to go to members with a deal you expect to be ratified and have it voted down.

Hopefully Lawler finds better things to do than driving while impaired.

You must be thinking of someone else. The best play call Lapo had for Brink was QB draw, ran a base RPO offense when he started and he also ran our short-yardage offense in 2011. But he couldn't pass at all mostly because he throw half the balls into the dirt cause he'd never set his feet.

Reminds me a lot of Alex Brink. If he can't calm his legs down to pass he won't do much when throwing the ball against pros when he inevitably needs to do so from the pocket. Mechanics are awful because he's never set even when in the pocket, more of a heave than a pass.

Hardrick is 32. He's not the LT of the future here. I also don't expect Gray to play much past his 30th birthday, he's very much year-to-year. Enjoy the great team we have, worry about the future later.

The roster change isn't until 2023 so the lists are moot.

I think we're at a point with the way the game is played and everyone on the roster having a role on O or D aside from only 2-3 guys per team (and a kicker or two) that the ratio could go by the wayside. To be clear by "ratio" I mean the declare 7 Canadian starters, DI's and QB's. If anything add one to the roster, a Canadian, and drop one DI for another Canadian. At that point teams are basically locked in to starting 6-7 Canadians for sure with more guys being role players. Nobody plays every down anymore particularly on D, you've got maybe one LB and 2-3 DB's who play every down.

So is there a weekly snap count audit to make sure everyone is compliant? They really need to work on simplifying the roster juggling and not making it more convoluted.

The players weren't on strike and were at the table. The league left the table and put out that email/tweet and then the players took the strike action. Yes the vote was in their back pocket. The league hit the red button when they were closest to getting a deal done. Pretty unbelievable given what's happened (or not happened) over the past two years with the leadership of this league struggling to even figure out how to play games. More cancelled games.

Did you notice that they are on strike? There's no incentive for them to end the strike before the end of preseason. Without that letter I guarantee they come out Monday morning with an agreement. Just an awful read of the situation and terrible tactic at the worst possible time. The letter is total disrespect for the players and the fact they are organized into a union. It galvanized them when the deal was about 90% done and players wanting to get going.

The BOG completely screwed themselves over with Ambrosie's letter to the players around the PA. Why would any vets, PA members, suit up for preseason now? As Naylor states there, the revenue from those games is all for the owners not the players.

Sign a 10 year CBA to "see how things unfold over the next couple of years." We've all heard Suitor talk enough to know he isn't very clever but now it's confirmed in print.