Unofficial list of Blue Bomber FA that was shared this morning did not include Sukh Chungh (or ANY of our OL, which is incredible)

Adams, Bass, Burnett, Briggs, Davis, Glenn, Denmark, Hurl, Gurley, McDuffie, Nichols, Rempel, Kohlert, Cummings

No Chungh

That would be awesome if we didn't have to worry about that.

6 hours ago, Mike said:

It's totally senseless to go to 5 American receivers.

Not when you have such piss poor production from your NI wrs over a season, have 5 productive imp WRs, and NIs that can start at other positions. Mcduffie and flanders almost matched our NI wr productions this year. Thats like 9 games of them being used in the offense combined vs the NIs being in every single game. 

 Would it be better to improve the usage and get better NI wrs? sure. But thats money and or assets spent when we allready have talented depth at that position. It may or may not be the way to go but it is far from senseless.  

1 hour ago, Brandon said:

I wonder if we see Durant in Toronto next season and Willy or Ray in Saskatchewan?

I could see hamilton and TO going hard after durant. Masoli isnt any kind of answer in hammy, and collaros isnt reliabe/durable enough. 

 Maybe edm trades franklin and brings in ray as a back up? nah probably not but fun to think. At this point in rays career, and with his health I think he goes to a team that can contend and on which he starts or he retires.

Here's a link to Ed Tait's FA list on the Bomber website: http://www.bluebombers.com/2016/11/15/free-agent-round-up/

For those still worrying about Chungh, he isn't on the potential FA list which is pretty solid proof that Chungh is still under contract.

From the text of Tait's article:

And just to clear up some confusion, offensive lineman Sukh Chungh is under contract for one more year. The big right guard confirmed as much on Monday.

“I’m back next year,” he said. “We’re building something here with our O-line. It’s been a tight-knit group this year. We spend a lot of time in the meetings rooms together and you get to know these guys personally. That’s what is special about it.

“We want to continue growth from where we left off now and get better. I feel like with the O-line we already have, we’re all ready to make that commitment to get better.”

You can't get more explicit proof then that.

Marc Trestman "not too interested" in coming back to the CFL? I guess he likes bouncing around the NFL like a rubber ball becoming more & more irrelevant with every bounce. The CFL saved his career once & it could again. Up to him I guess. You can't teach stupid. It just is.

9 hours ago, wbbfan said:

Not when you have such piss poor production from your NI wrs over a season, have 5 productive imp WRs, and NIs that can start at other positions. Mcduffie and flanders almost matched our NI wr productions this year. Thats like 9 games of them being used in the offense combined vs the NIs being in every single game. 

 Would it be better to improve the usage and get better NI wrs? sure. But thats money and or assets spent when we allready have talented depth at that position. It may or may not be the way to go but it is far from senseless.  

I don't care how good the pass catchers are, if the qb is looking at the sky when he throws the ball it doesn't matter. We just went through a very dark era in Blue Bomber history where we had the worst OL for years. Now that we finally put together an OL we can actually win with some fans want to dismantle it to play 5 Ints at receivers? No thanks.  

Edited November 16, 20169 yr by SpeedFlex27

Chungh being back was the best news of the day.

Hopefully we draft or sign a NI receiver in FA, who is an upgrade over what we have.

5 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Marc Trestman "not too interested" in coming back to the CFL? I guess he likes bouncing around the NFL like a rubber ball becoming more & more irrelevant with every bounce. The CFL saved his career once & it could again. Up to him I guess. You can't teach stupid. It just is.

That sums up this post pretty well.

I like how we look at the list this year and think, wow I hope we can keep all/most of these guys... in the past I'd look at the FA list and think there's 3 or 4 guys I really want back and rest I don't really care about...

6 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Marc Trestman "not too interested" in coming back to the CFL? I guess he likes bouncing around the NFL like a rubber ball becoming more & more irrelevant with every bounce. The CFL saved his career once & it could again. Up to him I guess. You can't teach stupid. It just is.

As I recall he came to the CFL to be a head coach, not save his career.  He just didn't want to be a coordinator anymore, and the CFL gave him his shot at that.  He spun that CFL gig into an NFL head coaching gig and it didn't work out.

He is now 60 years of age and has to be eyeing retirement at this point.   Coming back to Canada isn't going to get him another head coaching gig in the NFL.  At his age, I wouldn't call a guy not wanting to come work in a foreign country stupid.

6 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Marc Trestman "not too interested" in coming back to the CFL? I guess he likes bouncing around the NFL like a rubber ball becoming more & more irrelevant with every bounce. The CFL saved his career once & it could again. Up to him I guess. You can't teach stupid. It just is.

I guess he probably just likes lots of money more than he likes not as much money.

 

Go figure.

Very interesting write-up on Bennet:

 Might just be the best athlete on the team. He’s lined up at receiver in practice, shown a gun for an arm and would be a dynamo if he played special teams. Uncertain what the club’s plans are for him as all the QBs ahead of him on the depth chart are also prospective free agents.

I wonder if they try to bring back Nichols, Glenn as #2, promote Bennet to #3 and start to look for a new developmental guy...

7 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I don't care how good the pass catchers are, if the qb is looking at the sky when he throws the ball it doesn't matter. We just went through a very dark era in Blue Bomber history where we had the worst OL for years. Now that we finally put together an OL we can actually win with some fans want to dismantle it to play 5 Ints at receivers? No thanks.  

that was the first quarter of the year, over all for the season we had one of the best OLs. And even with that and the qb change still had horrible production at NI wr. I wouldnt change the OL to get the imp wrs all in, but It is some thing i would look long and hard at doing. 

2 Starting Intl OL is the CFL norm. We are forced to start 3 because of injury and we dont have an Natl depth at OL. 

10 minutes ago, M.O.A.B. said:

2 Starting Intl OL is the CFL norm. We are forced to start 3 because of injury and we dont have an Natl depth at OL. 

I would think the CFL norm is whatever is the smartest deployment of your assets in order to win you games.

We just won 11 games with 3 international OL - what's the problem with that?

49 minutes ago, Mike said:

I would think the CFL norm is whatever is the smartest deployment of your assets in order to win you games.

We just won 11 games with 3 international OL - what's the problem with that?

This.  If it means winning games, I don't care if we have 5 international OL.  Every team in the East had at least 3 Canadians on the o-line and the only thing that got them was a losing record.

3 hours ago, Mike said:

I guess he probably just likes lots of money more than he likes not as much money.

 

Go figure.

Yep...you can't teach stupid. He'll stay in the NFL for the fatter cheque.

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I would think the CFL norm is whatever is the smartest deployment of your assets in order to win you games.

We just won 11 games with 3 international OL - what's the problem with that?

No ******* kidding, the CFL norm be damned our OL with 3 americans might be one of the best in the league, why in gods name wouldn't we keep that going? The amount of time Nichols had in the pocket in the playoff game was something we haven't seen in these parts in ages, just bottles the mind that people don't recognize how much that move to go 3 americans on the OL helped to turn around the season. 

We start 2 Nats on the d-line, and people complain not enough pressure generated, it's always a trade off somewhere on the roster.

Our oline being a big strength of this team.... Those words still just don't sound right.  

Here's one for you: where does this oline rank among the Bombers of past?

4 minutes ago, pigseye said:

We start 2 Nats on the d-line, and people complain not enough pressure generated, it's always a trade off somewhere on the roster.

but it's not the Canadians that are really the issue. Westerman might be the best DL we have and it's the other DE spot that has been an issue which has been an American. 

4 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

but it's not the Canadians that are really the issue. Westerman might be the best DL we have and it's the other DE spot that has been an issue which has been an American. 

Westerman did not have a good year compared to last, the entire d-line was very average. According to Doug Brown, we did not run many stunts or twists for some reason, getting pressure with the front 4 didn't seem like a Hall priority.

Trestman isn't in the NFL. He was fired. He never would have become the Bears head coach had he not have had the success in Montreal that he had. Okay, stupid was the wrong word. I guess puzzling may have been the better term as the Argos would have opened the vaults to sign him.

Edited November 16, 20169 yr by SpeedFlex27

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

Westerman did not have a good year compared to last, the entire d-line was very average. According to Doug Brown, we did not run many stunts or twists for some reason, getting pressure with the front 4 didn't seem like a Hall priority.

That's not entirely true... he didn't get the sack stats like he did last year... but he was equally as disruptive in the backfield and had many QB hits (probably too many penalties though)...