If anything it is roster management and scheme.....

We are starting 8 Canadians but at this juncture but why? If you have an in game injury, we have the payers on the game day roster to cover it and it wouldn't be an issue so that notion is just garbage.

You declare your 4 on offence (Harris/Feoili/Chung/Goose) and 3 on defense (Westerman/Loffler and sadly Hurl tho I would try a game with Miles to see what happens) and you roll with it. 

Thomas is not a capable full-time starter and it has shown since Poop has been out...he has done squat and the D-line has been a non factor.  You keep Poop and Nevis in together for majority of reps as those two in the middle cause major issues for any o-line and do your rotation and different looks with Corney/Thomas/and one of Jeffcoat or OPo.  This Poop being out experiment has been an utter fail and it should never have even been considered.

If injuries happen to one of the starting Canadians, we have capable back-ups to fill in for the in game situation...leaves us far stronger than starting 8 Canadians in case of in jury and you have flexibility to put in the DI...just plain dumb.

Lankford is giving us nothing on returns that any other import would..he looks tentative, has not shiftiness and can't read blocking or make a guy miss. He had one return to the house and I feel we are too enamored with that...time to change it up. Also gives nothing on offence and since Thorpe was replaced it has affected the offence and takes away a big part of what we did.  Thorpes contributions in game far outweigh what Lankford brings with his minimum touches and weak returns...who cares if he can punt and kick...I sure there are guys on roster who can in a pinch too...actually I am certain there are.

If we are going to use this 2 back system...the friggen use it and pound the ball on a 3 to 4 man front...it would open up the receiving lanes and expand or playbook...even if it didn't the running would wear a defense down regardless. We lost the game when we were first and goal and turned it over on downs...A TD there and the game takes on a whole different vibe...With our line and the two backs in the backfield we should have no problem pounding it in with 3 tries from within the ten...just poor play calling.

Coates back there on returns??...like really...is there not anyone else that we could put back there? There are no ratio issues to contend with on ST's so throw back Flanders, Denmark..Fogg....whoever but Coates is not going to do anything back there of any game changing impact...one of those others may tho. 

I'm not too worried about a loss to Sask, and sitting at 7-3 is a good spot. We just need to take care of our business, get in the play=-offs and then it's anybodies chance.  We have the pretty much the horses to get there but some questionable decisions with roster and how we utilize guys has to be corrected because some of it is just baffling. 

 

If i see another 4 DE set im gonna lose my ******* mind. Hall is over thinking ****. Ive been saying it for two weeks...no Poop no pressure.

8 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

What makes you think they did not give Thorpe a shot at kick returns as early as TC and made the decision that Lankford  and Fogg performed better?  None of the great kick returners are out there breaking tackles, they're avoiding them completely and running to space.  Love Thorpe for his ability to break tackles but he hasn't yet shown elusiveness or the ability to find space like Flanders can.

yea I'd see thorpe as a PR kind of return man if anything.

Just now, Bigblue204 said:

If i see another 4 DE set im gonna lose my ******* mind. Hall is over thinking ****. Ive been saying it for two weeks...no Poop no pressure.

worked against EDM and MTL..

 

*shrug*

 

Just now, SPuDS said:

worked against EDM and MTL..

 

*shrug*

 

We used them...i wouldnt say they "worked"

Edited September 5, 20178 yr by Bigblue204

Just now, Bigblue204 said:

We used them...i wouldnt say they "worked"

 I recall them getting lots of pressure and forcing crappy throws..  isn't that kind of the definition of working?

9 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

yea I'd see thorpe as a PR kind of return man if anything.

while we are at it I'd like to see them bring back his bro Craphonso as well.

1 hour ago, SPuDS said:

 I recall them getting lots of pressure and forcing crappy throws..  isn't that kind of the definition of working?

yes they did. While the DT's where on the field. C johnson had a solid game. To be fair Westerman had the lone sack....but it was while Nevis was on the field.

1 hour ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

What makes you think they did not give Thorpe a shot at kick returns as early as TC and made the decision that Lankford  and Fogg performed better?  None of the great kick returners are out there breaking tackles, they're avoiding them completely and running to space.  Love Thorpe for his ability to break tackles but he hasn't yet shown elusiveness or the ability to find space like Flanders can.

He got hurt in TC and didn't come back until a few weeks into the regular season.  He may not have had a chance to do kick returns in TC.  Lankford got the job almost by default. 

10 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Don't get hung up on the 8 NIs "starting" on paper.  That's all it is.  Gives flexibility to move  NI slots to either side of the ball in case of injury, otherwise you are stuck with where you started the 7.

But you can't use a DI to replace a national starter so you have effectively lost one starting international spot that a DI could have been used to substitute.

Problem is... Bombers did get pressure... Its just Glenn is very good at getting rid of the ball quickly... Its not like he sat back in the pocket.. He just got rid of it quickly. How you counter attack that is... When you do get a shot to nail him... You do it.. And hard. Glenn will then start to turtle. Problem at the LDC is they had a chance to nail him but missed... Cuz our tackling is poor. 

Edited September 6, 20178 yr by Goalie

24 minutes ago, pigseye said:

But you can't use a DI to replace a national starter so you have effectively lost one starting international spot that a DI could have been used to substitute.

Nope.  You have a backup import on your roster who isn't declared as a DI who can sub in for anyone as long as your declared ratio numbers on that side of the ball are fulfilled. 

6 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Nope.  You have a backup import on your roster who isn't declared as a DI who can sub in for anyone as long as your declared ratio numbers on that side of the ball are fulfilled. 

That's not what I said, I said you have lost an international starting spot that a DI could have been used to replace. A DI could not be used to replace that backup import because you declared the position as a starting national.

19 minutes ago, pigseye said:

That's not what I said, I said you have lost an international starting spot that a DI could have been used to replace. A DI could not be used to replace that backup import because you declared the position as a starting national.

Nobody is declared but the QB's and DI's.  See if you can figure out how it works from there.

6 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Nobody is declared but the QB's and DI's.  See if you can figure out how it works from there.

Quote

So while there is nothing explicit stating the number of International/National on the field (giving teams the flexibility to decide across offence/defence how they want to deploy their roster), the restrictions on the International players results in a minimum number of National starters coaches must declare when submitting game rosters (and no ability for those National players to be replaced by a designated international). If teams decide to start less than the 16 Internationals allowed, those backup International players are allowed to replace a National.

https://cfldb.ca/2013/10/understanding-roster-restrictions/

Sorry you didn't like my choice of words but that's how the rules read.

17 minutes ago, pigseye said:

https://cfldb.ca/2013/10/understanding-roster-restrictions/

Sorry you didn't like my choice of words but that's how the rules read.

That's not the rules that's a fan article on a website.  

Teams declare a number of NIs on each side of the ball and must maintain that as minimum, but it has nothing to do with positions. If Loffler went out we could go all import in the secondary and replace the NI spot anywhere on D if we were starting 7 NIs.

The only positions that are declared are DIs, who can only sub in balance of the ratio and QBs.

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

https://cfldb.ca/2013/10/understanding-roster-restrictions/

Sorry you didn't like my choice of words but that's how the rules read.

Yeah except the rules actually read that you are limiting the number of americans not having a minimum required Canadians. 

That's where the designated import comes in, the numbers work out such that you only have enough Americans on your roster who aren't designated imports to leave 7 Canadian starting positions. You start more Canadians you have american backups who aren't designated imports  and they can come in when ever and where ever you want them to. It's the guys with a DI tag that need to replace another american on the field.