https://www.tsn.ca/naylor-many-questions-but-few-answers-on-a-2021-cfl-season-1.1543725

The Canadian Football League has been outrageously quiet since it pulled the plug on its season more than two months ago, leaving behind a wake of speculation about where things are headed next.

With the reality setting in that COVID-19 is likely to still be around in some form next summer, there is real concern about what the 2021 season might look like or if it will occur at all.

There are teams that believe it is vitally important to play in 2021 and that without a season the CFL is in danger of being mothballed. Whether every team believes that is another question. And there is a lot to sort out before anyone can accurately predict what a season might look like and how much pain the teams are collectively willing to stomach to make it happen.

The league and its franchises are currently running through various scenarios for next season, trying to get a handle on true costs of each and working at ways to trim budgets and save money. That’s likely to continue until the league can truly choose a course of action, which feels like next April at the earliest.

Why? Well, there’s not much point in fully committing to a scenario that’s seven months away if that scenario might be totally unrealistic by the time you get there.

There has been no 2021 business plan presented yet, only regular updates to the presidents and governors about what the league is doing to prepare for the unknown.

It should be noted that teams will need to make decisions about retaining assistant coaches with expiring contracts by December, which will be the first real economic commitments to a 2021 season. Restrictions on signing players will need to be lifted well before the opening of February free agency, where players are likely to meet a cautious market – one in which signing bonuses will probably be absent.

There’s a collective bargaining agreement to amend, if not renegotiate, with the players, which will require some kind of pressure point because it always does. But the league can’t sit down with the players until it gets a true handle on revenues and it can’t do that until it chooses a course of action.

Will CFL teams be allowed to have full stadiums next summer? It doesn't seem likely. But just what percentage of capacity will be allowed – if any at all – is impossible to guess. It seems as if the league is counting on the restrictions that currently prevent fans from being in stadiums being lifted. But to what degree?

When will we see a schedule? Good question. Or could we see multiple schedules for different scenarios? Never say never.

Could it be a 21-week, 18-game season played in home stadiums? Unlikely, given the losses teams are expected to take with reduced numbers of fans in the stands. Could we see a return to the 10-week bubble? Maybe. A nine-game schedule played in home stadiums before fans? Perhaps.

The point is no one knows, so demanding answers to questions that can’t possibly be answered right now is a waste of time.

All we know is that there’s going to be a lot less revenue for teams to operate with under any scenario, not just because of crowd restrictions but also due to older fans choosing to stay home for their safety. The CFL’s fan demographics do it no favours in this regard.

Getting consensus on a best course of action won’t be easy for the CFL’s nine teams. Back in the summer, there were teams that were willing to play without government support and teams that weren’t. And just like then, the biggest challenge commissioner Randy Ambrosie faces now is finding a scenario they can all live with.

Adopting a revenue-sharing model so that each team absorbs the same amount of red ink would certainly make consensus-building easier, which many believe should be the direction for the future, COVID-19 or not.

The other elephant in the room is federal government, which many in the CFL believe left it high and dry last summer after months of back-and-forth talks where the league believed it was making progress.

Is the CFL prepared to go down that road again, knowing it doesn’t control the timeline and larger forces can change things in an instant? Perhaps, although it’s not as though the feds don’t have a long list of people coming at them with their hands out.

There will be voices demanding the owners suck up the losses of playing a season under any circumstance, as owners have done in other sports. But the business calculation in sports such as MLB, NFL, NHL and NBA is different because of the percentage of revenues those leagues derive from television.

Losses sustained by playing in those leagues can also be viewed as investments towards protecting massive franchise values. That’s not the case in the CFL, where teams can’t just float money on the backs of their franchise values, and where one third of the teams are publicly owned.

It would be beneficial for the league to soon announce its formal commitment to play some kind of season in 2021.

But beyond that, get ready for months more of waiting with lots of questions and speculation but very few answers.

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

Quote one example of someone saying anything remotely close to this.

BLM is the 1 and only example that anyone's given of a QB with McGuire's experience level having a break out year. Everyone who thinks that we'll be fine with McGuire at QB if Collaros goes down is saying it. Everyone who expecting the best case scenario is saying it too. Even comparing McGuire to Streveler, who wasn't ready IMO to take us to the GC last year with considerably more experience than McGuire is hoping for the best despite our history.

10 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

BLM is the 1 and only example that anyone's given of a QB with McGuire's experience level having a break out year. Everyone who thinks that we'll be fine with McGuire at QB if Collaros goes down is saying it. Everyone who expecting the best case scenario is saying it too. Even comparing McGuire to Streveler, who wasn't ready IMO to take us to the GC last year with considerably more experience than McGuire is hoping for the best despite our history.

That’s not anything remotely resembling a quote. That’s Donald Trump-speak declaring as proof that  “people out there are saying......”

But let’s inject another opinion into this. Here’s Ed Tait’s write-up on McGuire and the situation he comes into. And also some QB comparables who AREN’T Bo Levi who came in the positive early reviews. 
 

https://www.bluebombers.com/2020/05/23/column-story-sean-mcguire/

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

BLM is the 1 and only example that anyone's given of a QB with McGuire's experience level having a break out year. Everyone who thinks that we'll be fine with McGuire at QB if Collaros goes down is saying it. Everyone who expecting the best case scenario is saying it too. Even comparing McGuire to Streveler, who wasn't ready IMO to take us to the GC last year with considerably more experience than McGuire is hoping for the best despite our history.

So you can't find any posters saying McGuire is the next BLM?

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

BLM is the 1 and only example that anyone's given of a QB with McGuire's experience level having a break out year. Everyone who thinks that we'll be fine with McGuire at QB if Collaros goes down is saying it. Everyone who expecting the best case scenario is saying it too. Even comparing McGuire to Streveler, who wasn't ready IMO to take us to the GC last year with considerably more experience than McGuire is hoping for the best despite our history.

On 2021-06-19 at 12:57 AM, SpeedFlex27 said:

Dane Evans says hello.

Hoping McGuire can learn well under Collaros and succeed. Snagged one of McGuire's game-worn jerseys from the Grey Cup year just in case. (It was very clean, BTW)

 

 

5 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Of course the best possible outcome is rarely the probable outcome. In other news the sky is blue. Why worry that our backup QB has little to no CFL experience? Because we are likely going to need him to win games for us this year. It's very telling that you look at the probable outcome and call it negative. It means you know I'm right, but you don't want to admit it.

Speedy... Tell you what. I'll give you that Brock was a great QB who never found a way to win the big game so we can stop arguing about things that happened 40 years ago and don't have any meaning anymore. Better? How 'bout we talk about the rookie kicker being given the job, the DB situation, the backup QB and the loss of PLAP. At least that's relevant.

You're the one who can't stop talking about our lack of developing qbs going back 50 years. You're pushing the discussion agenda here  & not anyone else. It got old fast but yet here you are still talking about it 18 months after our Grey Cup win.  The other positions? All doom & gloom. As I said, it gets old fast. 

13 minutes ago, Doublezero said:

Hoping McGuire can learn well under Collaros and succeed. Snagged one of McGuire's game-worn jerseys from the Grey Cup year just in case. (It was very clean, BTW)

 

 

McGuire was actually directly involved in more scoring plays than either Collaros or Streveler. Zach is responsible for 6 points with his handoff to Harris, Strev for 6 for his pass to Harris, and McGuire for 21 as the holder for Medlock on the field goals and converts. 

51 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

McGuire was actually directly involved in more scoring plays than either Collaros or Streveler. Zach is responsible for 6 points with his handoff to Harris, Strev for 6 for his pass to Harris, and McGuire for 21 as the holder for Medlock on the field goals and converts. 

Indeed this is true. And I loved the lights-out hits McGuire delivered in 2019 on more than one defender on FG kick protection. It'll be interesting to see how the QBs develop as a group under a new Co-ordinator and how buck's offence differs from Lapo. You have to think it will still feature Harris but who knows? Buck has had lots of time to think about it.

Building on Tait's article but isn't it possible that McGuire has the level of success we saw from the relatively untested Evans, Fajardo, Arbuckle in 2019? Going back further Ricky Ray, Khari Jones, Printers all had success despite limited reps before coming starters. As Kevin Garnett said, "Anything is possible."

7 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Of course the best possible outcome is rarely the probable outcome. In other news the sky is blue. Why worry that our backup QB has little to no CFL experience? Because we are likely going to need him to win games for us this year. It's very telling that you look at the probable outcome and call it negative. It means you know I'm right, but you don't want to admit it.

Speedy... Tell you what. I'll give you that Brock was a great QB who never found a way to win the big game so we can stop arguing about things that happened 40 years ago and don't have any meaning anymore. Better? How 'bout we talk about the rookie kicker being given the job, the DB situation, the backup QB and the loss of PLAP. At least that's relevant.

If he doesn't work out we parachute in someone. Like we did with collaros in 2019. You worry too much. Kyle walters is anything but inactive.

3 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

You're the one who can't stop talking about our lack of developing qbs going back 50 years. You're pushing the discussion agenda here  & not anyone else. It got old fast but yet here you are still talking about it 18 months after our Grey Cup win.  The other positions? All doom & gloom. As I said, it gets old fast. 

Just ignore me then. I'm wired to look at the most likely outcomes. You're wired to look at the best possible outcomes and to think that any other outcome is negative gloom and doom. It's not, but I'll never convince you so I'll just leave it here. I can't stop the internet cuz you're feelings are getting hurt and I'm not about to change the way I think. Your choices are to ignore it or whine about it. I'm guessing the whining will continue as it has for the last decade or so.

5 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

That’s not anything remotely resembling a quote. That’s Donald Trump-speak declaring as proof that  “people out there are saying......”

But let’s inject another opinion into this. Here’s Ed Tait’s write-up on McGuire and the situation he comes into. And also some QB comparables who AREN’T Bo Levi who came in the positive early reviews. 
 

https://www.bluebombers.com/2020/05/23/column-story-sean-mcguire/

You realize that Tait writes uber positive articles for the Bombers, right? I read the article. McGuire seems like a nice kid. It's worth noting that Fajardo had 3 years of experience before he got the call. Arbuckle isn't Ottawa's starting QB, Nichols is. Arbuckle will be fighting it out with MBT for the Argos starting QB spot. I'd rather have Arbuckle than McGuire because I've seen more of him and he's done pretty well.

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

If he doesn't work out we parachute in someone. Like we did with collaros in 2019. You worry too much. Kyle walters is anything but inactive.

Like who? (Munching on popcorn)

If there's a vet QB out there worth bringing in, then bring him in to TC and let him compete against McGuire. That way he has the offence down and he will be ready to go sooner if we have to bring him back later. Heck, we could put him on the IR just to keep him around.

You don't worry enough.

20 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

You don't worry enough.

Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do but doesn't accomplish a damned thing.

You must have one hell of a worn out rocking chair.

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Like who? (Munching on popcorn)

If there's a vet QB out there worth bringing in, then bring him in to TC and let him compete against McGuire. That way he has the offence down and he will be ready to go sooner if we have to bring him back later. Heck, we could put him on the IR just to keep him around.

You don't worry enough.

Like whoever shakes out. I mean at this point before 2019 no one thought collaros would be available. There's always some option if things don't work out. Maybe McGuire is capable. Maybe streveler comes back, maybe some other team has a change at qb and someone is available. He'll Maybe collaros lasts the whole year. He does have a strong OL... you worry too much. 

Reaction to every TBurg post about the Bombers here...

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 20214 yr by SpeedFlex27

7 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Reaction to every TBurg post about the Bombers here...

 

 

 

That's not the flex you think it is. Lots of folks around here think that their opinion and conjecture is worth more than facts so they try to 'shout' me down.

12 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Like whoever shakes out. I mean at this point before 2019 no one thought collaros would be available. There's always some option if things don't work out. Maybe McGuire is capable. Maybe streveler comes back, maybe some other team has a change at qb and someone is available. He'll Maybe collaros lasts the whole year. He does have a strong OL... you worry too much. 

Do I have this right? You're idea is to wait until we need a QB right away before we look for one? Take whoever is available at that moment? You don't think it's a good idea to bring one to camp to compete? Where's the downside to competition? Where's the downside to knowing our offence? If we keep him on the IR, he can be in all the meetings. and be ready to play the day we need him. If Streveler comes back, great, cut the other vet QB.

You're a fly by the seat of your pants, non-planner guy. I'm a plan for the worst and hope for the best guy. If it turns out that Collaros lasts the whole season, then we've burned some non-sms cash. If it turns out we need another QB, then having one around from day one is huge. Think of it as insurance if you like.

There's no available free-agent vet QB at the moment. 

Or maybe TBurg is rooting for Jonathon Jennings? 😁

 

Edited June 21, 20214 yr by M.O.A.B.

45 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

That's not the flex you think it is. Lots of folks around here think that their opinion and conjecture is worth more than facts so they try to 'shout' me down.

Do I have this right? You're idea is to wait until we need a QB right away before we look for one? Take whoever is available at that moment? You don't think it's a good idea to bring one to camp to compete? Where's the downside to competition? Where's the downside to knowing our offence? If we keep him on the IR, he can be in all the meetings. and be ready to play the day we need him. If Streveler comes back, great, cut the other vet QB.

You're a fly by the seat of your pants, non-planner guy. I'm a plan for the worst and hope for the best guy. If it turns out that Collaros lasts the whole season, then we've burned some non-sms cash. If it turns out we need another QB, then having one around from day one is huge. Think of it as insurance if you like.

I totally agree with this. But at the end of the day, I'm gonna trust the management that just brought this team to a championship. And...camp doesn't start today...there is still time for competition to be brought in. On top of that, let's not forget that Streveler was in the system for less time than McGuire when he got his opportunity (injury forced) AND has been the only CFL qb to start in the NFL in recent years. So while overall the teams track record on finding qbs hasn't been great, within the last year or two it's been pretty solid.

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

There's no available free-agent vet QB at the moment. 

Or maybe TBurg is rooting for Jonathon Jennings? 😁

 

Bombers sign Jennings.....Tburg "they're just bringing in bodies for the sake of having bodies, this is a waste of signing bonus money that could have been used on a younger player that actually has some potential!"

39 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Bombers sign Jennings.....Tburg "they're just bringing in bodies for the sake of having bodies, this is a waste of signing bonus money that could have been used on a younger player that actually has some potential!"

Seriously, I'd take Jennings as a Vet backup prospect. He looked pretty good as a throw deep first QB. He looked pretty bad when he was told to cut down on the mistakes and read the defence. You gotta let Jennings Jenning if you want to use his potential. I don't expect a good to great backup vet QB. Anyone we would hire would have baggage otherwise they'd be a starting QB.

Pass on Jennings because he can't pass ...

On 2021-06-20 at 9:37 AM, TBURGESS said:

How 'bout we talk about the rookie kicker being given the job, the DB situation, the backup QB and the loss of PLAP. At least that's relevant.

I think you're just assuming that he is "being given the job"... we're still a month away from camp and could easily have another kicker or two by then...

30 minutes ago, bearpants said:

I think you're just assuming that he is "being given the job"... we're still a month away from camp and could easily have another kicker or two by then...

I'm assuming based on MOS's comments. I seriously hope they bring in another kicker or two.

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Seriously, I'd take Jennings as a Vet backup prospect. He looked pretty good as a throw deep first QB. He looked pretty bad when he was told to cut down on the mistakes and read the defence. You gotta let Jennings Jenning if you want to use his potential. I don't expect a good to great backup vet QB. Anyone we would hire would have baggage otherwise they'd be a starting QB.

So you'd rather a guy who has shown his flaws and been found lacking rather than hope a young guy can step in and play? If we had to get to Jennings we'd be hooped anyway so what's the difference? Sometimes you have to take a chance on a new guy rather than try a retread. Retreads are for when the new guy fails.

31 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

So you'd rather a guy who has shown his flaws and been found lacking rather than hope a young guy can step in and play? If we had to get to Jennings we'd be hooped anyway so what's the difference? Sometimes you have to take a chance on a new guy rather than try a retread. Retreads are for when the new guy fails.

While I do agree with you. To be fair, with Jennings you at least know what you're getting into. You have an idea of what he does well and where he struggles. And hopefully you're able to draw up a game plan that fits his skills. Saying all that I like going with the unproven/unknown guys until they show they can't take the heat.

1 hour ago, bearpants said:

I think you're just assuming that he is "being given the job"... we're still a month away from camp and could easily have another kicker or two by then...

Really thought the Bombers brought in UofM kicker/punter Matt Riley last year, but his name is not on the roster anymore. 

Edited June 21, 20214 yr by M.O.A.B.

Riders already wafer-thin OL takes another hit with the retirement of Braden Schram today.......also lose DL Chad Geter to retirement.