I think that our management/coaching decisions this off-season clearly indicate that offence will be a priority this year. At least that's what our player and coaching changes suggest. I would be very surprised if we hire a passing game guru OC then hand him 3 NAT receiving group.

On 2026-04-23 at 6:29 PM, Goalie said:

Hey man people who self admitted don’t go to practices say so. Thats why. I agree with you tho. I haven’t seen much to suggest that Clercius isn’t just the black Jamie stoddard. The reality is both are 5th options for Zach maybe even 6th option. Corcoran isn’t any better but he was the rookie. Clercius and Corcoran are 2 likely easily replaceable players. It’s an odd debate.

I think Clercius is better than what he's shown. Corcoran was a rookie with limited reps. Can't really fairly assess him yet imo.

1 hour ago, Booch said:

Yeah at worst this will be final shot/season down there to stick....And if no real legit feelers if/when he gets released either in TC and after camp....and no PR opp....could be a late season guy we see....or in camp for 2027...His injury issues and non-ability to develop hurt him down there...but good for us

He'd be a huge addition

In the NFL you don't get many chances to prove your worth in a game, and when he did he had a spectacularly bad game...almost cringeworthy bad. That has sealed his fate. He had 2 full years of development and looked god awful when he got his chance. Couple that with the good old NFL bias against CIS guys and he is pretty much toast. Lions gave him a lot of leash and he did nothing with it.

Manu coming in 2027 could really upset the apple cart for us, in a good way. A bonafide and legit NAT OT with NFL pedigree. That could change everything for us on OL.

Just want to point out that the Detroit Lions were almost ready to part ways with Giovanni Manu already and they ended up selecting an OT yesterday in round 1. Very likely that Manu gets shown the door in Detroit. I doubt that he doesn't at least get some other looks in the NFL, but him coming to the Bombers is not outside the realm of reality by end of NFL TCs.

5 minutes ago, bb1 said:

Yeah Lawrence at 7 definitely fits the way Chevy likes to draft,but hopefully we get lucky and move up.😊

If we move up we have much higher odds of being number 1 or 2. Same goes for 7 or 8 with 9 having about the same odds (less than 1%) as getting number 3. Not sure how it works or why but 3 and 9 are longshots. Therefore, is we move up the highest probability is number one or two. If we get top two you take one of McKenna or Stenberg...they are a cut above everyone else. If we go 7 or 8 you look for one of the big 3 D, if they are not available then Lawrence or Malhotra. Bjorck intrigues me...but size matters down the middle in the NHL. I think Bjorck is a winger at that level.

Malhotra and Lawrence are way below Verhoeff, Carels, and Smits in upside. They fit an organizational positional need but BPA is one of the 3 d-men. I like Bjorck as much as the next guy but he is tiny. Some guys can play through that and have success at the next level but I'm not betting a top 10 pick on it. I think he's a faller in the draft, much like Perfetti was, due to size.

If I were a betting man I would think that all of the 3 d will be taken before 7, and we will then go Lawrence at 7 to fit our need for a 2C. Sorry...I don't believe Yager is that guy. If Yager proves me wrong then what a good problem we have. I'm not picking Malhotra because i think Lawrence has a higher ceiling, even though Malhotra is probably better right now.

57 minutes ago, bb1 said:

I hope we get lucky again and shoot up to third grab Borck,or get really lucky and get 1st..grab Mckenna..🤞

If we get 3rd I dont want Bjork with that pick. We should be thinking best Dman at that pick because there are 2 that are guaranteed future all stars there.

50 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

yeah that's right, my timeline is way off lol. I swear 2024 was both 3 years ago and yesterday....

Either way, it's pointless for me to argue on it, so people can think what they want. The point WBB was making stands. Drafting guys that really want to play will be very important as the NIL deals continue.

Of course, you have to draft guys who want to play. That is part of the scouting process. Guys who come to the combine or take part in pro days are doing so because they intend to play for the most part. Our draft eligible guys that do these things rarely decide that CFL money is not good enough, however, conversations are had with prospective players prior to the draft. NIL money is not a significant indicator of a players motivation except maybe at QB or receiver where the NIL earnings are substantially more than other positions. You will have far more trouble getting commitment from the guys at the last few rounds of our draft than the ones in the first couple rounds.

2 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

He was only down there for a year. I'd be surprised if he got more than 10 or 20 grand USD.

He made 90k, which every player on the Boilermakers got as a base (they spread the Alumni money out to all players in all sports) and earned no other NIL deals. Not a bad haul for one season, but certainly not enough to retire on. lol

The Boilermakers are not exactly a hot NIL market.

4 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

You don't need to make big money to be making more than your rookie contract. He was down there for 3 years? I think...if that's correct, he's made over 1/2 a mill. Maybe closer to 3/4.

According to the Boilermaker NIL reports he made 90k total.

1 minute ago, Bigblue204 said:

Vaccaro has made significantly more in college than he will likely on his first and second cfl contract.

Hoggies don't tend to receive the big college money. Not much merchandising deals for overweight white guys.

19 hours ago, Noeller said:

This is always the most important thing... It's such a short window between the NFL draft and ours, making an already difficult task practically Herculean for the CFL GMs... As always, I just hope we take the best "CFL Now" OL available when our pick comes...

I have no issue taking anyone not drafted. UDFA's rarely get more than a cup of coffee in the NFL. The odd one sticks on a PR for a year, but most of the time they are brought in as training camp fodder.

21 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Do you think Vaccaro will sign a FA contract with an NFL team if he isn't drafted?

Hard to say. Possibly. We should know that pre-draft.

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

with a non-football injury designation. I feel like they may bring him back once he's healthy...?

50/50

51 minutes ago, Brandon said:

So why don't they sign the free agents who are on the rise and in their prime?

Why do you think they sign the washed up guys / over the hill?

It is the crux of the problem isn't it. Chevy knows what he needs to do, but can't do it because the guys he would sign won't sign here. We need some young talent in the worst way but haven't had the draft capital to get them. More than anything else, we need a 2C imo, and the only way we are getting one that moves the needle is draft and development. For that reason I hope that we draft Lawrence. No offense to Yager, but his up side is below average 2C, above average 3C....and that won't get us anywhere.

27 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

A lot of big stars left. We lost Matt Dunigan & Elfrid Payton to US expansion teams. Tracy Ham, Damon Allen, Mike Pringle all left Canadian teams. Don Matthews left the Riders to coach the Baltimore team. so there was drain for sure.

Dunigan got a fat contract to leave, biggest in CFL history at the time I believe.

Helle said exactly what every guy in that locker room is thinking. Is it the fact he said it out loud that people are angry about?

29 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Doyle Orange's son (Brendan O'Leary Orange) was a much better fit & more versatile than Clercius. We let him go to Hamilton. He had the same size Clercius has with better hands & speed. Go figure. Not surprising though considering how Walters managed our roster the past few years.

Meh...O'Leary Orange didn't exactly keep his job either. On his rookie contract sure his production was acceptable but coming off of it he wasn't worth much of a raise. However, you are correct he was a better fit. We have not drafted well the past few years at NAT receiver for sure.

41 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

Brady+Demski+Nield+Neufeld+Eli+Kramdi+Lawson seem to be locks, so where do you get your other Canadia starter? Which is better for the offense, a third NI receiver or a third OL? Do we have another defender who can take a spot?

What's better for offence is that we add another NAT starter on defence, safety perhaps. We could move Kramdi to S and start one of our young guys we drafted last year at SAM, or keep Kramdi at SAM and let one of several guys we have fight it out for S. Or maybe we put a NAT at field corner etc. etc. Ultimately what would be best and easiest is if we get a stud like Vaccaro that can go onto our line as a rookie and and give us the 3rd NAT there. The likelihood of finding a suitable 3rd NAT receiver in a pass heavy offence seems remote to me and Condell runs a passing heavy offence. We need to make ratio elsewhere imo.

4 minutes ago, johnzo said:

I think I might have been too fast to dismiss this. Did any established Canadian players try to catch on down south during the expansion era? Canadians heading south for lower taxes and harder currency is totally a thing, so it's hard to imagine that someone didn't try.

The American teams didn't want them. They could go American at a fraction of the cost and same talent level. Gotta remember that back then most NAT players wouldn't have made the roster on any CFL team if it weren't for the rules. Nowadays, you probably would have NATs going south but back then if it wasn't required there were better Americans out there that could be had for cheaper. Look at the CFL these days even, how many NATs would be starting in our league if it weren't for the ratio rule. Maybe a couple per team and that is the honest truth. Look at OL over the past 10 years, most teams now are dressing a minimum of 2 IMPs and a few teams going 3, and almost all those teams would go all 5 if they could.

34 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Was anyone really impressed with Clercius last season? Big target but slow as molasses. His hands are okay but nothing special. Not sure about his route running although he just never seemed to be open. I think we can do better. Hogan had him lining up as a wide receiver when he should have been inside where his big body could be used more effectively. He might shine as a slotback. At wideout, I can't see Clercius ever being more than a 25-35 reception guy & maybe 400 yards receiving. Barely enough to make a difference.

Was anyone impressed with any of our offence last year though? Context is everything in this case possibly. I do agree that field wide is not really where I would want him playing but I can't see how he wins time inside though. He's a guy that really doesn't fit our roster very well.

3 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Great to hear. he's from the State of washington as is his wife & family so I thought he may have wanted to return.

Why the roll eyes, Noeller? Bighill has a career as a financial planner. He has a list of clients he has to serve & will be taking on new ones. Now, that he's retired he needs more income so he'd want to ramp that up. Not be a Bomber assistant coach. Some guys don't want to coach.

I sense some big, big changes coming after this season that the CFLPA will be powerless to stop. Once the new field is in existence...

I agree that we are probably eyeing a US expansion once Trump is gone. Also agree on Biggie. Winnipeg is his home now, has been for a while and he doing great with IG apparently.

16 hours ago, wbbfan said:

Im a bit surprised biggie went out a bomber and not a lion. I love the guy and he had a couple big years here. But nothing like what he did in BC.

His CFL most outstanding defensive player awards with Winnipeg say differently. lol. I'm not surprised at all he went out a Bomber. We set him up for life after football as well.

14 minutes ago, Booch said:

yup...That route would not give us our best roster...

We have a high draft pick and this is a good draft year, no reason we can't find a way to not have to go 3 NATs. That and we already have some good NAT depth ready to go.

Just now, SpeedFlex27 said:

Yes, that & the fact the US teams were paying their players with American dollars. The Canadian dollar in 1995 was similar in value or maybe a little worse so players signing from Canadian teams to American teams got a 40% raise for the same numerical number. I.E: One year deal worth $100,000 Canadian or ! year deal deal worth $100,000 US. Canadian teams didn't stand a chance. I don't how they could make it work today.

There is an SMS now. Whatever currency you are paid in must fit into a CAD cap amount. That violates nothing. However, the ratio rules can never be worked out. It's against the US law. However, knowing the CFL they would do something stupid and put the teams in Florida and Texas where the taxes would constitute a massive advantage especially for guys making near league mins.

19 hours ago, Booch said:

totally true....And Allen on defence further adds to that....They also lost a high contributing Global too which hurts....Be interesting on how they re-do that ratio there

yeah his measurables were garbage for a receiver...well....bottom tier I guess....and he didnt seem too enthused to use any physicality in the blocking game either....

Speaking of Corcoran, he doesnt offer a lot really...even on teams and if we draft one of the intriguing upside receivers in the draft, and with Demski..Neild and Clercius, I just dont see a spot on roster for him....and If we dress him in addition to all 3..thats a poor decision. I cant see us going 3 national receivers either for ratio...ZC needs all the top end talent we can field and if 4 nationals, one of them being Corcoran is the best next 4 guys we scrounged up behind White..Demski..and Wilson then thats an epic recruitment fail...or a really poor coaching decision...again

We won't go 3 NAT receivers if we draft properly. Having to do so would be a failure by Walters.

16 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

The only way to get around that is to abolish the ratio if the CFL feels that it's future is in the US, Mexico or Europe. Canadians would still play & start but only the best. Unless a player was a ST demon, they'd probably have no chance so most Canadians wouldn't play. So, there may be one or two players on the roster per team.

Yea...it's the fly in the ointment of any US expansion. Simply cannot have a league with two different roster building rules. It's why the American expansion teams could throw ridiculous money at the best CFL QBs and build their OLs etc with cheap American beef.

23 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Oh well... It was always out of his hands. No one can control government red tape & regulation. The trouble getting a visa is why no Canadians played on the American teams in the CFL 30 years ago. The American govt said no. It only benefitted guys like Dunigan, Pringle, Elfrid Payton, Ham & Damon Allen. The star American players all cashed in & left as they were paid in American dollars while the Canadians were forced to stay & get paid in Canadian dollars. At the time, the Loonie was in a similar situation as it is now vs the Canadian dollar.

The Americans would not allow our ratio rules in the USA. Had nothing to do with visas. If the teams of the day wanted Canadian players they could have used them, they just didn't have to abide by the ratio rules of our league because the US wouldn't allow them.