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.

Chad Rempel signs with Edmonton.

21 hours 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.

 

 

As opposed to what, really? Your facts???

 

Edited June 22, 20214 yr by SpeedFlex27

20 hours 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.

It's not one or the other. It's a competition for the #2 spot. Frankly, if McGuire can't beat Jennings for the #2 spot, then he isn't the answer you think he is.

Speedy... Facts are facts. They aren't mine and they are alternative or fake. Here's an example from this thread. Fact: Brock never won the GC. Conjecture: Whose to say he couldn't have won if given more chances. Those two ideas aren't equal. One is a fact and the other isn't. Got it now?

On 2021-06-20 at 4:06 PM, rebusrankin said:

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."

I'm so glad we're back debating the back up QB situation rather than talking about covid! Welcome back CFL!

Finding a back up QB in the CFL is challenging. It's not like the NFL where you can overpay a veteran guy to hold a clip board, or basically put all your eggs into the starter basket and don't even have a capable back up (Vikings 2020). 

In the CFL because of the limited $, you definitely have to find and develop QB's and hope they turn into starters. But, because the O-lines are worse than the NFL, and because it's a passing league, CFL starting QB's tend to drop like flies. Rare for one to make it through an entire season, as we as Bomber fans have witnessed.

Based on that, the fact is we have an unproven back up - McGuire. He may be good. And I'd have him as QB2. But, as a Grey Cup contender, I'd feel a lot better with some type of cheap vet back up QB on the roster who has played a few CFL games. If Collaros goes down, and McGuire isn't ready, we're in trouble.

I deliver the mail to the stadium every day and I keep getting more and more excited when I see the parking lot slowly filling with cars and life finally being put back into the stadium.

Edited June 22, 20214 yr by Nolby

42 minutes ago, M.Silverback said:

I'm so glad we're back debating the back up QB situation rather than talking about covid! Welcome back CFL!

Finding a back up QB in the CFL is challenging. It's not like the NFL where you can overpay a veteran guy to hold a clip board, or basically put all your eggs into the starter basket and don't even have a capable back up (Vikings 2020). 

In the CFL because of the limited $, you definitely have to find and develop QB's and hope they turn into starters. But, because the O-lines are worse than the NFL, and because it's a passing league, CFL starting QB's tend to drop like flies. Rare for one to make it through an entire season, as we as Bomber fans have witnessed.

Based on that, the fact is we have an unproven back up - McGuire. He may be good. And I'd have him as QB2. But, as a Grey Cup contender, I'd feel a lot better with some type of cheap vet back up QB on the roster who has played a few CFL games. If Collaros goes down, and McGuire isn't ready, we're in trouble.

QFT. 

You sum it up pretty well. Im about as comfortable with mcguire as our back up as I can be in any qb with that amount of experience. I would love to have a guy who can step in and win games right away on the bench. Especially behind collaros. But right now those guys are few and far between. And we can use that cap money in better ways. 

 If streveler becomes a real option Id be happy to have him back, but tbh im not sure if he is that guy either. He can bring a lot, and a worst case scenario of a 2 man show with him and mcguire couold be pretty good. But idk if at this point in his development if he is ready to step in and win games on his arm alone. It takes dual threat qbs longer to come around like that. 

saw something on Twitter last night...sounds like Yoshi is back in town already. Was out playing basketball yesterday evening, apparently. *cues up The Boys Are Back In Town*

also, just for funzies......17to85 found this the other day. It's worth a watch:
 

 

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

It's not one or the other. It's a competition for the #2 spot. Frankly, if McGuire can't beats Jennings for the #2 spot, then he isn't the answer you think he is.

Speedy... Facts are facts. They aren't mine and they are alternative or fake. Here's an example from this thread. Fact: Brock never won the GC. Conjecture: Whose to say he couldn't have won if given more chances. Those two ideas aren't equal. One is a fact and the other isn't. Got it now?

Fact: you have expressed repeatedly how the Bombers have only found one good starting QB in the last 50 years. 

Conjecture: that statistic means that Danny McManus will automatically fail in finding talent because past regimes did

You lament the lack of home grown QB success we have had, and now that we are going that route with McGuire you want to abandon that plan and being in a veteran. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. McGuire is not being handed the job, there are more than 2 QBs signed to come to camp. And he did earn a spot in competition last year, beating out incumbent Brian Bennett (and outplaying Streveler in pre-season by all metrics). Now with Streveler gone he has, temporarily at least, moved up the depth chart. You label those who believe he has skills as “only seeing the most positive outcome” where he is the next Bo Levi, which, unless you can provide an actual citation where someone said that, is not a FACT. You also say when we bring up Dane Evans as another example “congratulations, you have identified the 1 in a million case where it worked out” which is also not a FACT. And is not remotely accurate as conjecture. Your claim that you are wired to look at the most likely outcome makes the assumption that failure is the most likely outcome. That is not a FACT either, that is your perception. And it could be argued that it is comparable to saying “when a QB throws a pass, 3 things can happen, and 2 of them are bad” to suggest that there is a 67% chance of incompletion or interception, so failure there is the most likely outcome (ignoring that most QB’s have a completion percentage of over 50% at minimum). 
 

I can accept that there are concerns about the lack of experienced depth at QB behind Collaros, and with Collaros’ injury history, maybe we should have more insurance. That is fair comment and worthy of debate. But you have trouble sticking to that argument when challenged and go off on exaggerated “one in a million” claims to double down on your point, and then act surprised and get defensive (that’s my conjecture, I won’t call that a fact) when people see you as overly negative. 
 

The conjecture, not fact, is that if Collaros goes down that may thrust MCGuire into a starting role he is not ready for and we will struggle. We may be “hooped” as you say. But it does not make it a fact that this is the most likely outcome. And frankly, every team outside of Hamilton and maybe Toronto would be in the same boat if their starter went down. And Hamilton would have said that last year when Evans was untested behind Masoli. Same with the Riders and Fajardo behind Collaros. Hopefully a full year to heal in 2019 and then another bonus year without contact, coupled with a much better offensive line, will allow Collaros to have completely recovered and we won’t have to find out what happens if he goes down. 
 

Final thought - we have a salary cap and need to make choices. We have opted to spend money on keeping a strong front 7 on defence and a solid o-line and running back on offence (and until Medlock’s retirement, we spent a lot on our kicking game). That leads to shortfalls in money elsewhere, like back-up QB. I am OK with that plan if it creates a stronger overall starting group of players. This management group seems to have figured it out, to the tune of a championship team. I will give them the benefit of the doubt for now on their roster management. 

Edited June 22, 20214 yr by TrueBlue4ever

⬆️👏👏👏

As for the kicker situation, I am surprised we don’t have another one coming to camp, but even if Liegghio is being awarded the job without challenge, history will strongly suggest that it really doesn’t mean much. Traditionally kickers (especially in the NFL) are given a super short rope, and every game is an audition. Failure in game 7 is as likely to get one cut as a poor training camp. And clubs seem able to bring in a new guy on zero notice and give him the job. So I am not going to sweat the lack of competition at training camp - it seems to be perpetually there for kickers year round until they have enough career success to earn a reprieve for one bad game. 
 

As for the DB situation, that spot seems to have a bunch of turnover as the season goes on pretty much every year. Our starting 5 in game 1 in 2019 was Rose, Sayles, Alexander, Chandler Fenner, and Jeff Hecht. We finished with the first 3 and added Matson, Nick Taylor, and Mike Jones by Grey Cup Sunday. It is a position that gets flipped a lot, and players are plentiful (it may be the easiest position to fill on a team), so again question marks going into training camp aren’t as big a deal to me, and even if we appeared “set” it wouldn’t mean there was no concern or changes coming by mid-season. 

1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

QFT. 

You sum it up pretty well. Im about as comfortable with mcguire as our back up as I can be in any qb with that amount of experience. I would love to have a guy who can step in and win games right away on the bench. Especially behind collaros. But right now those guys are few and far between. And we can use that cap money in better ways. 

 If streveler becomes a real option Id be happy to have him back, but tbh im not sure if he is that guy either. He can bring a lot, and a worst case scenario of a 2 man show with him and mcguire couold be pretty good. But idk if at this point in his development if he is ready to step in and win games on his arm alone. It takes dual threat qbs longer to come around like that. 

You're right. I guess the good news is most CFL teams are in the same spot - unproven back up QB's. The Argos have the best QB depth right now. And Streveler - not sure he's even a quality starter in the CFL, but as a Bombers legend, he is officially welcome back at any time, in any capacity.

54 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

The conjecture, not fact, is that if Collaros goes down that may thrust MCGuire into a starting role he is not ready for and we will struggle

there are numerous examples of veterans who played badly, we tried a number of them over the last few years.

getting a good vet as a backup is pretty unlikely.

and there are lots of examples of rookies who succeed.

in the NFL now there are lots of people who think the best chance to win is with a good qb on a rookie contract.

enjoyed your dissection job, well done Doc.

3 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

It's not one or the other. It's a competition for the #2 spot. Frankly, if McGuire can't beat Jennings for the #2 spot, then he isn't the answer you think he is.

Thing is, in the minds of the gm and coaches he already won that competition. If they didn't think he could beat Jennings they'd have a guy like that in camp. 

16 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Thing is, in the minds of the gm and coaches he already won that competition. If they didn't think he could beat Jennings they'd have a guy like that in camp. 

Some would have us believe that our coach and GM have no ****in clue at what they are doing. 

1 hour ago, M.Silverback said:

You're right. I guess the good news is most CFL teams are in the same spot - unproven back up QB's. The Argos have the best QB depth right now. And Streveler - not sure he's even a quality starter in the CFL, but as a Bombers legend, he is officially welcome back at any time, in any capacity.

He may be a quality back up. He had starts and we went and made a trade for Zach. 

1 hour ago, JCon said:

Some would have us believe that our coach and GM have no ****in clue at what they are doing. 

further....some good stuff on what to expect with this year's offence, via Our Man Tait......

https://www.bluebombers.com/2021/06/22/believe-physical-physical-team-league/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Did they not draft a Global Kicker?

7 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

Did they not draft a Global Kicker?

yes. 4th round. Arryn Siposs - he's a punter though. 

https://auburntigers.com/sports/football/roster/arryn-siposs/12896

Edited June 22, 20214 yr by M.O.A.B.

couple things - that single game betting bill that's in the senate right now is about to pass in overwhelming fashion. Huge news for the CFL. 

Also, re: Bombers roster: 

 

 

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

couple things - that single game betting bill that's in the senate right now is about to pass in overwhelming fashion. Huge news for the CFL. 

 

Passed today. 

I honestly don’t know how this translates into big money for the CFL, but others seem to think it is a big deal. Can someone explain to this rube?

Edited June 22, 20214 yr by TrueBlue4ever

8 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Passed today. 

I honestly don’t know how this translates into big money for the CFL, but others seem to think it is a big deal. Can someone explain to this rube?

So the companies that will now legally be able to accept bets in Canada, are going to pay the CFL a LOT (15-20 million is an estimate) to allow betting on their games. Each team is expected to net around 2 million bucks from this endeavour. 

4 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Fact: you have expressed repeatedly how the Bombers have only found one good starting QB in the last 50 years. 

Conjecture: that statistic means that Danny McManus will automatically fail in finding talent because past regimes did

You lament the lack of home grown QB success we have had, and now that we are going that route with McGuire you want to abandon that plan and being in a veteran. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. McGuire is not being handed the job, there are more than 2 QBs signed to come to camp. And he did earn a spot in competition last year, beating out incumbent Brian Bennett (and outplaying Streveler in pre-season by all metrics). Now with Streveler gone he has, temporarily at least, moved up the depth chart. You label those who believe he has skills as “only seeing the most positive outcome” where he is the next Bo Levi, which, unless you can provide an actual citation where someone said that, is not a FACT. You also say when we bring up Dane Evans as another example “congratulations, you have identified the 1 in a million case where it worked out” which is also not a FACT. And is not remotely accurate as conjecture. Your claim that you are wired to look at the most likely outcome makes the assumption that failure is the most likely outcome. That is not a FACT either, that is your perception. And it could be argued that it is comparable to saying “when a QB throws a pass, 3 things can happen, and 2 of them are bad” to suggest that there is a 67% chance of incompletion or interception, so failure there is the most likely outcome (ignoring that most QB’s have a completion percentage of over 50% at minimum). 
 

I can accept that there are concerns about the lack of experienced depth at QB behind Collaros, and with Collaros’ injury history, maybe we should have more insurance. That is fair comment and worthy of debate. But you have trouble sticking to that argument when challenged and go off on exaggerated “one in a million” claims to double down on your point, and then act surprised and get defensive (that’s my conjecture, I won’t call that a fact) when people see you as overly negative. 
 

The conjecture, not fact, is that if Collaros goes down that may thrust MCGuire into a starting role he is not ready for and we will struggle. We may be “hooped” as you say. But it does not make it a fact that this is the most likely outcome. And frankly, every team outside of Hamilton and maybe Toronto would be in the same boat if their starter went down. And Hamilton would have said that last year when Evans was untested behind Masoli. Same with the Riders and Fajardo behind Collaros. Hopefully a full year to heal in 2019 and then another bonus year without contact, coupled with a much better offensive line, will allow Collaros to have completely recovered and we won’t have to find out what happens if he goes down. 
 

Final thought - we have a salary cap and need to make choices. We have opted to spend money on keeping a strong front 7 on defence and a solid o-line and running back on offence (and until Medlock’s retirement, we spent a lot on our kicking game). That leads to shortfalls in money elsewhere, like back-up QB. I am OK with that plan if it creates a stronger overall starting group of players. This management group seems to have figured it out, to the tune of a championship team. I will give them the benefit of the doubt for now on their roster management. 

Fact 1: The Bombers have only found 1 good (Great except he never won a GC just for Speedy), 1 great (for other teams) and 1 part time starter.

Fact 2: I don't care if we ever bring another starting QB into the league because I don't care where they come from as long as they can play at a high level. No, I'm not lamenting our lack of success. I'm pointing out our past lack of success is a fact that should be taken into account when it comes to our expected success.

Fact 3: You don't have to watch the CFL as long as I have to understand that inexperienced QB's generally fail. BLM, in Calgary's great system, is an exception to the rule, but if you think that McGuire is an exception based on his preseason play and his 6 play CFL experience, then I think you're fooling yourself. It's not just the Bombers either. Most young QB's never amount to anything in the CFL despite great college success. The one's that do usually take more than a year on the bench before they become successful.

'Those who think he has skills' isn't remotely the same as 'we're going to be OK if he has to start'. I think he has skills, but I don't have any idea and neither do you, if those skills will be enough to win games in the CFL. Lots of young QB's look good in preseason against other teams backups and cuts, running a vanilla offence against a vanilla defence and still don't even become competent backups let alone starters.

One in a million was an overstatement on my part.

Most likely doesn't mean will happen. Could McGuire be the next one or at 'least hold the fort'? Sure, but how likely is it? Now, how likely is it that a QB with actual CFL starting experience will be able to at least 'hold the fort'? Past events put me on the side of the Vet.

Fact 4: I'm not the least bit surprised that people who only ever want to look at the best possible outcomes find me negative. It's always been that way. If I cared about that, I would have left a long long time ago.

The Salary cap is a red herring. We can't dress a 3rd QB this year. If we had a vet QB, they'd either be #2 or IR'd to save the SMS hit. It's good insurance IMO.

If we don't bring in another QB, then McGuire won't have any vet competition in camp. He'll be competing against 2 Newbies without any CFL experience. If either of them beat him out, then I'll still be worried about our lack of depth behind Collaros. I'd prefer that McGuire compete against an CFL experienced QB for the #2 spot.

IMO we're hooped if Collaros goes down again for any length of time unless we bring in a Vet QB. It's an opinion based on logic, reasoning and the facts I've presented.

 

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Thing is, in the minds of the gm and coaches he already won that competition. If they didn't think he could beat Jennings they'd have a guy like that in camp. 

There was no competition for him to win.

Everyone knows that you'll be 100% on the GM and Coaches side no matter what they do. You were one of the biggest 'he who should not be named' and Joe Mack fans on these forums until the day they were fired.

We arguably have a Grey Cup contender. I'd hate to see that promise wasted trying to bring a young QB up to speed. I don't believe we would have won the cup 'last' year if we had to rely on McGuire and Streveler and I don't believe we'll win one this year if we have to rely on McGuire and Newbie #2.

Again I say: Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

4 hours ago, JCon said:

Some would have us believe that our coach and GM have no ****in clue at what they are doing. 

Yeah we will never win with those ******* in charge. 

Like seriously when has walters ever sat on his hands with the qb position? Willy struggles he brings in Nichols. Nichols is hurt and streveler is young and having ups and downs he brings in collaros. I am sure there are other moves I am not remembering but walters is anything but complacent. He works harder tha  any gm out there.

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

You were one of the biggest 'he who should not be named' and Joe Mack fans on these forums until the day they were fired.

You talking about Mike Kelly? Because I think you are quite mistaken about just how much I supported that clown.

3 hours ago, Noeller said:

So the companies that will now legally be able to accept bets in Canada, are going to pay the CFL a LOT (15-20 million is an estimate) to allow betting on their games. Each team is expected to net around 2 million bucks from this endeavour. 

I did not realize the league needed to give permission to allow betting on it.