The first Preseason game is May 31 .... the regular season starts June 14 ... everything will start to move very quickly now .... I am not used to the CFL in May  but you know what? I am very glad for it

Thank you Mr Ambroise but please be advised I still want a November Grey Cup ... mid November is Ok but no sooner

Stanley Cup and Grey Cup in the same year ... it would probably kill me !

 

4 hours ago, rebusrankin said:

We only have Corney and Faith as backup DL. That gives us only 6 on the roster. Teams usually use 7.

We used 7 when we did a heavy rotation on the DL and hadnt found our starters. I dont think that is the case this year. Teams carry 6 ol for 5 spots. Also we have some larger LBers that play DE in a pinch. If we still had jake thomas id be all in favor of an extra DL. Marouf may become the extra DL who can back up on the OL as well. Corney might be big enough to be the 4th DT, and thomas miles has the size to back up at end as well. 

Looks like whether they like it or not, Walters/O'Shea will be making some hard cuts this year. Hoping they hide some guys on the IR. 

yeah...hate to lose some of guys brought up...so hopefully we pull a Sask and use the 1 game and 6 game as an extended roster and evaluation pool ...

4 hours ago, wbbfan said:

We used 7 when we did a heavy rotation on the DL and hadnt found our starters. I dont think that is the case this year. Teams carry 6 ol for 5 spots. Also we have some larger LBers that play DE in a pinch. If we still had jake thomas id be all in favor of an extra DL. Marouf may become the extra DL who can back up on the OL as well. Corney might be big enough to be the 4th DT, and thomas miles has the size to back up at end as well. 

Our best defensive games last season were with 7 DL.  Struggled huge against the run with 6 dressed.  We have lots of NI DB’s and LB’s who can fill in.  If we had one DI to use on D I’d use it on a DL.

I'd really like to see Poop/Nevis as our main DTs...  Jeffcoat/Okpo/Roh/Corney all rotating on the outside to keep that pressure fresh...

I think there will be a huge difference in the interior DL with Bighill as the secondary line of D rather than Hurl... 

19 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

The only Imports on the offence are Nichols, Bryant, Hardrick, Dressler, Adams and Bowman.  Which one is Flanders supposed to replace as a D.I.?  Going with two Natl. receivers pretty much sealed Flanders fate imo, they're better off going with an extra Import receiver as the D.I. in preparation of taking over from Dressler or Bowman next year.

So we’re going to rotate receivers? We’re not going to sit Adams/Dressler/Bowman to get a rookie receiver in the game. 

Flanders will play. The Harris/Flanders backfield package was one of our most dangerous weapons last year. I don’t see them giving that up. Not to mention Flanders has proved he’s an adequate starting receiver. 

7 hours ago, Floyd said:

I'd really like to see Poop/Nevis as our main DTs...  Jeffcoat/Okpo/Roh/Corney all rotating on the outside to keep that pressure fresh...

I think there will be a huge difference in the interior DL with Bighill as the secondary line of D rather than Hurl... 

It will definitely gonna be an all-Int DL starters. I won't be surprised if Brandin Bryant will be starting beside Poop though. 

1 hour ago, Blueandgold said:

So we’re going to rotate receivers? We’re not going to sit Adams/Dressler/Bowman to get a rookie receiver in the game. 

Flanders will play. The Harris/Flanders backfield package was one of our most dangerous weapons last year. I don’t see them giving that up. Not to mention Flanders has proved he’s an adequate starting receiver. 

To get Flanders in the game, we have sit one of Adams/Dressler/Bowman. As a DI, he has to take an import off and it won't be our QB or an OL.

Agreed....from what I observed Bryant seemed to have what it takes to make Nevis expendable....He may start out on PR but I bet by game 4 or 5 he will be on the roster

2 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

To get Flanders in the game, we have sit one of Adams/Dressler/Bowman. As a DI, he has to take an import off and it won't be our QB or an OL.

So what's wrong with that?  It's nice to work in a 2 back set every now and then.

21 minutes ago, Atomic said:

So what's wrong with that?  It's nice to work in a 2 back set every now and then.

Yeah I don't see it being a big deal. When we run a two back set one receiver has to go off. Might as well be one of the imports. Doesn't make that much of a difference since we have some promising Canadian receivers.

14 minutes ago, Atomic said:

So what's wrong with that?  It's nice to work in a 2 back set every now and then.

Not to mention Dress and Bowman are getting pretty old. Why not sit them for a down or a series now and then? Throw some fresh legs against a tired DB late in the game? It's not like they're going to play every down all year.

Were not going to sit any of Bowman, Adams or Dressler to get a rookie import receiver/returner into the game, but it's no problem to sit them to get Flanders into the game to run a 2 back set that we can run with Lafrance or Demski without taking one of the big 3 off of the field. That doesn't pass the sniff test.

15 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Were not going to sit any of Bowman, Adams or Dressler to get a rookie import receiver/returner into the game, but it's no problem to sit them to get Flanders into the game to run a 2 back set that we can run with Lafrance or Demski without taking one of the big 3 off of the field. That doesn't pass the sniff test.

Two different circumstances.  Bringing in a rookie receiver and sitting one of the vets gives you nothing in terms of different formations or a higher skill level, while bringing in Flanders instead of Lafrance gives you a clear advantage.

But you make a good point about Demski.  If anyone is filling the role Flanders played towards the end of last season, it would be him.  I am curious to see what happens.

9 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Two different circumstances.  Bringing in a rookie receiver and sitting one of the vets gives you nothing in terms of different formations or a higher skill level, while bringing in Flanders instead of Lafrance gives you a clear advantage.

But you make a good point about Demski.  If anyone is filling the role Flanders played towards the end of last season, it would be him.  I am curious to see what happens.

A rookie receiver could give one of the big 3 a rest during the game. He could also be the main returner so we would get double duty from 1 DI. I'd rather backup an import receiver with another import receiver then rely on 3 NI receivers, or a 2 back set, if one of the imports gets injured and they've all had injury history over the last few years.

33 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

A rookie receiver could give one of the big 3 a rest during the game. He could also be the main returner so we would get double duty from 1 DI. I'd rather backup an import receiver with another import receiver then rely on 3 NI receivers, or a 2 back set, if one of the imports gets injured and they've all had injury history over the last few years.

One encouraging prospect for the future is that Simonise or Petermann may eventually be able to fill in for an Import receiver as a game day replacement with little to no drop off, freeing up a D.I. position.

4 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

To get Flanders in the game, we have sit one of Adams/Dressler/Bowman. As a DI, he has to take an import off and it won't be our QB or an OL.

Yes, and quite often last year Flanders replaced Weston Dressler or Clarence Denmark. He can very easily replace Dressler or Bowman on occasion. 

We also gave Flanders a nice contract extension, we didn’t do it so he could ride the pine. We realized last year that our O is much more efficient with the added and unique dimension that Flanders brings to the table. 

I don’t see a guy like Demski having the abilities to replace Flanders. Demski will bring his own unique abilities to the table if he plays to his potential, but he’s a different player than Flanders. There’s no reason to think that Flanders isn’t a shoo in to be on the active roster.

The key point being missed here is that Flanders could conceivably be better than any new import receivers we have. Flanders did well as a starting receiver last year. 

Edited May 22, 20187 yr by Blueandgold

11 minutes ago, Blueandgold said:

The key point being missed here is that Flanders could conceivably be better than any new import receivers we have. Flanders did well as a starting receiver last year. 

The key points are:

Which DI on defence do you sit to get Flanders on the field? A DE (Roh?), LB(Wild?) or DB/Returner(Fogg?)?

Is it better to use a DI on a backup receiver/returner or Flanders who isn't a returner IMO?

Can LaFrance and/or Demski do Flanders job well enough so we don't have to us a DI on Flanders?

 

2 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

 

Guessing Marouf 's injury is bad and will miss some time. Not sad to see JT back though.

4 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The key points are:

Which DI on defence do you sit to get Flanders on the field? A DE (Roh?), LB(Wild?) or DB/Returner(Fogg?)?

Is it better to use a DI on a backup receiver/returner or Flanders who isn't a returner IMO?

Can LaFrance and/or Demski do Flanders job well enough so we don't have to us a DI on Flanders?

Linebacker, IMO, is the place we don't need to use a DI.

@EdTaitWFC - Canadian DT Ian Marouf was just carted off the field with an injury.

Gotta suspect the two things have something to do with each other.

Just now, Atomic said:

Linebacker, IMO, is the place we don't need to use a DI.

Agree to disagree, but fair enough.

3 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Agree to disagree, but fair enough.

My reasoning being that our DI LB the last couple years has been used almost exclusively on special teams and we have enough good Canadian players to run down kicks now that it may not be necessary.  Although it would be nice to have Wild, JSK, and Bighill all on the roster, for sure.