Well .. the Combine list of participants is out. Pretty weak showing, to be honest. Lots of top prospects not attending.

NOT ATTENDING: Auclair, Senior, Gray, Herdman, Ankou, Ekakitie, Simonise ... that's all of the top 5 prospects, as well as a handful of other ones.

Notables that ARE attending ... Alex Singleton's brother is coming, I'm curious to see how he does. Bladek, Mulumba, Luke, Woods, Boateng

http://www.cfl.ca/2017/02/09/rosters-set-cfl-reveals-list-2017-combine-participants/

Are the Bombers better off taking Vandervoort at #1 given that we need a standout NI receiver (which he potentially is), given that we pick again at 6 and that leaves us a pretty good OL or DL prospect?

1 hour ago, Floyd said:

Vandervoort at #1 would go down as one of the worst picks of all time... 

Worse than Shomari Williams or Chris Baumann?

1 hour ago, Floyd said:

Vandervoort at #1 would go down as one of the worst picks of all time... 

5 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

Are the Bombers better off taking Vandervoort at #1 given that we need a standout NI receiver (which he potentially is), given that we pick again at 6 and that leaves us a pretty good OL or DL prospect?

There's a pretty solid group of decent OL, nothing too special, in this draft.  Unless someone really separates from the pack there's no reason to pick a OL out of desperation, even with either of the 1st rounders.  Draft the best football player available and you'll be fine.  Have to guard against the NFL stuff, but otherwise BPA.

I just think NI Rec is kind of a no man's zone in our offense and unless the guy you take is absolutely better than the IMP's you already have, it might be a waste of a pick.....

40 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I just think NI Rec is kind of a no man's zone in our offense and unless the guy you take is absolutely better than the IMP's you already have, it might be a waste of a pick.....

It's been that way because we've had limited (the good ones) and pretty brutal players in that spot.  If we had a Fantuz or Sinopoli they wouldn't be playing field WR and running decoy.

5 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Why?  Would Andy Fantuz have been the worst #1 pick too?  Vandevoort is one of the top prospects at his position this decade.  Obviously that only counts for so much but your post is pretty damn ignorant.

What a ridiculous response.  Vandervoort is good but not in Fantuz league.

This is not Fantuz vs Adam Braidwood.  If you want Vandervoort over Woods, Gray, Mulumba or Ankou... go ahead.

 

13 hours ago, bb1 said:

Though Walter's could really piss off some people here and grab Picton in the second round....I can hear the groans...??

Unless he has nice hair or his mom is hot.

8 hours ago, Floyd said:

Vandervoort at #1 would go down as one of the worst picks of all time... 

You said it!

38 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

You said it!

What does a pic of 12 year old Addison Richards have to do with this thread.

12 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Why?  Would Andy Fantuz have been the worst #1 pick too?  Vandevoort is one of the top prospects at his position this decade.  Obviously that only counts for so much but your post is pretty damn ignorant.

Fantuz isnt at all a good comparison. He came out 15 lean pounds heavier with similar speed. The difference between him and fantuz is as big as him and denmark weight wise. Cfl draft comparisons in general are extremely unfair. The difference in the athletic level of cis draft picks 11 years ago to now is gigantic.  If you want to cherry pick you could compare addison richards to jason clermont when he came out. And favorably too. Simonize has great measurables, but so did richards etc. 

Each of these kids have to be evaluated as a stand alone. Weve seen lots of good wr prospects come out and fizzle in the last fist full of years. Of late it seems like one of the higher risk low reward positions. (at the top 2 rounds or so) 

Im not at all sold on him as a no 1 pick. But im a big fan of the value in drills and 1 on 1s. The fact he is in the combine is a + for me too. Especially now with simonise off the board. Vandevoort is handily the best wr in the draft and while others skip hes going. He also has fantastic hands which is a big plus for me too. He should at worst be a serviceable Ni wr. If hes a high motor guy with great hands itll be hard for him to fail. 

9 hours ago, Floyd said:

What a ridiculous response.  Vandervoort is good but not in Fantuz league.

This is not Fantuz vs Adam Braidwood.  If you want Vandervoort over Woods, Gray, Mulumba or Ankou... go ahead.

 

Are you saying that non of those players will be available at 6? I don't think Vandervoort will be there at 6 and you can still likely get one of the above.

16 hours ago, Floyd said:

Vandervoort at #1 would go down as one of the worst picks of all time... 

I've told you a million times: quit exaggerating!

9 hours ago, Floyd said:

What a ridiculous response.  Vandervoort is good but not in Fantuz league.

How would you know?  What amount of time have you spent scouting Vandervoort?

You are forming opinions based on very little information and declaring them as absolutes.  And then shouting people down with them.

 

The potential talent and value of most of these players won't have real clarity until after the combine when hopefully the best offensive players can line up 1-on-1 against the best defensive players.

Since neither of us will be there, we can take turns regurgitating Duane Forde's opinion afterward.

8 hours ago, Floyd said:

What does a pic of 12 year old Addison Richards have to do with this thread.

That was a picture of Jade Etienne, and it was taken last week.

3 hours ago, wbbfan said:

Fantuz isnt at all a good comparison. He came out 15 lean pounds heavier with similar speed. The difference between him and fantuz is as big as him and denmark weight wise. Cfl draft comparisons in general are extremely unfair. The difference in the athletic level of cis draft picks 11 years ago to now is gigantic.  If you want to cherry pick you could compare addison richards to jason clermont when he came out. And favorably too. Simonize has great measurables, but so did richards etc. 

Each of these kids have to be evaluated as a stand alone. Weve seen lots of good wr prospects come out and fizzle in the last fist full of years. Of late it seems like one of the higher risk low reward positions. (at the top 2 rounds or so) 

Im not at all sold on him as a no 1 pick. But im a big fan of the value in drills and 1 on 1s. The fact he is in the combine is a + for me too. Especially now with simonise off the board. Vandevoort is handily the best wr in the draft and while others skip hes going. He also has fantastic hands which is a big plus for me too. He should at worst be a serviceable Ni wr. If hes a high motor guy with great hands itll be hard for him to fail. 

Wasn't comparing players directly, was responding to the idea that picking a receiver #1 is dumb.

There hasn't been anyone remotely as polished as Vandevoort in a draft since Fantuz.  Not just athletically, but as a receiver.  The only guys near them would be Coehoorn, and maybe Shawn Gore.  The rest in that time in terms of good receiver prospects have been just athletes that teams would have to teach how to play, basically like how a Simonise or Auclair would be in this draft.  Vandevoort will be one of the top NI receivers as a rookie.

Edited March 7, 20178 yr by JuranBoldenRules

11 hours ago, Floyd said:

What a ridiculous response.  Vandervoort is good but not in Fantuz league.

This is not Fantuz vs Adam Braidwood.  If you want Vandervoort over Woods, Gray, Mulumba or Ankou... go ahead.

 

Keep reading 3DownNation and telling me what I don't know.

My favorite Vandervoort high lite is him catching a onside punt in the air for a TD

2 hours ago, mbrg said:

How would you know?  What amount of time have you spent scouting Vandervoort?

You are forming opinions based on very little information and declaring them as absolutes.  And then shouting people down with them.

The potential talent and value of most of these players won't have real clarity until after the combine when hopefully the best offensive players can line up 1-on-1 against the best defensive players.

Since neither of us will be there, we can take turns regurgitating Duane Forde's opinion afterward.

My one response out of an entire page now annointing Vandervoort as the next Fantuz is 'shouting down'... okay. 

We can joke about Bauman but he was a much more promising prospect that Vandervoort currently is...  maybe combine will change that.

The funny part is that I'm pretty sure no one on this board - especially the guys jumping on me now - would ever actually consider Vandervoort at 1st overall.

I'll stick with the rotational DT, a potential RT or a potential starting MLB... 

6 minutes ago, Floyd said:

My one response out of an entire page now annointing Vandervoort as the next Fantuz is 'shouting down'... okay. 

We can joke about Bauman but he was a much more promising prospect that Vandervoort currently is...  maybe combine will change that.

The funny part is that I'm pretty sure no one on this board - especially the guys jumping on me now - would ever actually consider Vandervoort at 1st overall.

I'll stick with the rotational DT, a potential RT or a potential starting MLB... 

but what is this based on? You are making a lot of comments like this without any attempt to back them up from what I can see

2 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

but what is this based on? You are making a lot of comments like this without any attempt to back them up from what I can see

Actually the only comment I'm making is that taking a CFL receiver first overall is basically a bad decision... even when it looks like a sure thing.

Bauman was a 'generational' receiver... In his draft year, he was clearly the best player.  900 yard season v. Vandervoort's 600 yard...

This year, there is no clear first overall but there are very good players - drafting OL, DL or MLB is a much safer bet.

Vandervoort at 6 is fine but if he's gone then likely one of your top prospects - Gray, Woods, Bladek, Mulumba, Ankou... is still there

Maybe I'm not seeing something in Vandervoort's stats - I'd love to be informed what sets him apart from the consensus top prospects.

We start a NI receiver.  Why would we out-of-hand dismiss drafting a potentially much better NI receiver when it's over a month before the combine?

11 minutes ago, Floyd said:

I'll stick with the rotational DT, a potential RT or a potential starting MLB... 

Which are all things that are more likely to still be available at #6 than a starting WR.

So once again, how would you know?  How amount of time have you spent scouting Vandervoort?

It's the same thing Floyd always does. He looks at news clippings and statistics pages and comes up with an expert opinion about a bunch of guys he's never seen play. You'll notice how three separate posters on this page alone have asked him to share his opinion on Vandervoort as a prospect and all he will tell you is how many yards he put up last season.

I won't make assumptions, but I truly doubt he's ever seen Vandervoort play and I'm assuming that he just doesn't like the guy as a prospect because he's got a funny last name or something. The Floyd Favorites always come out in draft season.

I don't know about Vandervoort going at the number one spot, however I do know I like him as a prospect. He's got a lot to clean up in his game, as CIS receivers always do, but his natural abilities are some of the best I've seen from a receiver coming out of the CIS in a while. He tracks the ball very well in the air, he's already got the instincts and compete level to go up and fight for the ball in traffic. His route running needs some work, as they usually do, but he's a good instinctual receiver with solid mitts. I'd like to get him but I just don't know if it's in the cards with our draft positioning.

That being said, I wouldn't hesitate (unless he bombs the combine) to pick him at #3 if we could somehow work a trade with BC if they were interested in leaping ahead of Saskatchewan. I don't think Saskatchewan and Winnipeg will have their eyes on similar guys, so I could see us moving down to #3 to stay ahead of Hamilton. Maybe something like #1 and #23 for #3, #16 and #24. Who knows.

15 minutes ago, mbrg said:

We start a NI receiver.  Why would we out-of-hand dismiss drafting a potentially much better NI receiver when it's over a month before the combine?

Which are all things that are more likely to still be available at #6 than a starting WR.

So once again, how would you know?  How amount of time have you spent scouting Vandervoort?

The same as about 95% of this board... 

Since, you're apparently an expert on Vandervoort, let me know what makes you think he's the next Fantuz...?  Nothing in the limited access I have says he's anything out of the ordinary - probably Coehoorn level from what I can tell.

But hey, I'm always open to new ideas, I'll admit I'm wrong if you can demonstrate he's clearly better than Ankou, Woods or Mulumba.

And yeah, draft anyone you want... I'm not stopping you.  God bless Canada and all that...

1 minute ago, Mike said:

It's the same thing Floyd always does. He looks at news clippings and statistics pages and comes up with an expert opinion about a bunch of guys he's never seen play. You'll notice how three separate posters on this page alone have asked him to share his opinion on Vandervoort as a prospect and all he will tell you is how many yards he put up last season.

I won't make assumptions, but I truly doubt he's ever seen Vandervoort play and I'm assuming that he just doesn't like the guy as a prospect because he's got a funny last name or something. The Floyd Favorites always come out in draft season.

I don't know about Vandervoort going at the number one spot, however I do know I like him as a prospect. He's got a lot to clean up in his game, as CIS receivers always do, but his natural abilities are some of the best I've seen from a receiver coming out of the CIS in a while. He tracks the ball very well in the air, he's already got the instincts and compete level to go up and fight for the ball in traffic. His route running needs some work, as they usually do, but he's a good instinctual receiver with solid mitts. I'd like to get him but I just don't know if it's in the cards with our draft positioning.

That being said, I wouldn't hesitate (unless he bombs the combine) to pick him at #3 if we could somehow work a trade with BC if they were interested in leaping ahead of Saskatchewan. I don't think Saskatchewan and Winnipeg will have their eyes on similar guys, so I could see us moving down to #3 to stay ahead of Hamilton. Maybe something like #1 and #23 for #3, #16 and #24. Who knows.

Of course, I look at clippings and of course, I haven't seem him play... IM IN THE YUKON!!!!

You know, its always just a few guys that re-cast my posts as 'expert' or be all, end all...  and then make yourselves out like some sort of heroes for standing up for, now, Vandervoort...

Now you 'disagree' with me by saying exactly the same thing I just said...  we shouldn't pick Vandervoort at #1 but he'd be a fine pick at #6.

Then throw in an awful idea to trade down to #3 to get Vandervoort just to show that you don't agree in front of 'the gang'...  its pretty old hat.