Jump to content

GDT - Week 16 - The Champs @ The Stamps


JCon
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would have to rewatch but from my memory McGuire was being blitzed and was rushed far more then Brown who had a lot of steamboats while playing in a cold buy dry conditions.   Brown seemed to have underthrown several balls and could really only throw mid range passes while on the run.   McGuire showed crap in Montreal but in his previous pre season and other gameplay the guy clearly can sit in a pocket and throw a deep ball with oomph.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

It's almost like there was a lack of a certain offensive attack style so cgy solely focused taking away the run in the 2nd half....

They were playing 7 man box and we were playing double tight and even 2 wide formations. Not to mention a 3rd string dl vs starting ol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Brandon said:

I would have to rewatch but from my memory McGuire was being blitzed and was rushed far more then Brown who had a lot of steamboats while playing in a cold buy dry conditions.   Brown seemed to have underthrown several balls and could really only throw mid range passes while on the run.   McGuire showed crap in Montreal but in his previous pre season and other gameplay the guy clearly can sit in a pocket and throw a deep ball with oomph.  

 Brown had all day especially compared gl McGuire. If brown had to play with what McGuire did and vs that als from it would've been catastrophic. 

 I don't see this old guard of qbs sticking around as back ups. Every team would want a vet back up but next year I doubt any one has one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Half the league doesn't even have a reliable starter.  More than half if you don't have much belief in MBT or question the longevity of BLM and Reilly.

I don't really know who people want as a "decent backup."  With no preseason this year there's not much to go on.  Best options would be guys like Pipkin or guys who are broken down like Nichols.

That's the biggest problem with the CFL & why teams are struggling. The lack of quality quarterbacks. With only 9 teams, you'd think every team would have a reliable starter but that's not the case.

11 hours ago, Rod Black said:

We have no legit #2 qb. That fumble on the 1 resulting in a minus 40 loss, is why we lost the game. Inexcusable. He bumbled a number of snaps as well. Like Brown has never held a football before. 
 

I hope this loss remains in the mind of our team. 

I just worry Brandon Alexander won't play in 2 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JCon said:

Veteran back-up = not developing our next QB. 

You have to pick one or the other. 

Sort of. A raw guy like brown would benefit from being behind a 2nd vet qb. If that qb doesn't need a lot of reps even better. But once you've been on the bench for a year it's a hindrance for sure.

Honestly in the modern era we've seen lots of qbs step in and produce quickly. From blm to streveler to Mr heavy Balls in Edmonton.  I think the expectation should be higher for rookie qbs. No one is gonna get the old year on the pr year on the bench then carefully eased into playing any more. 

12 hours ago, Rod Black said:

Developing qb’s could include that big bastard in Edmonton, the Schiltz guy in Montreal. Hamilton seems ok in the qb area for a second string. Not a lot out there. 

Evans is still developing Imo. Maier is a young gun. The league actually has a good number of young experienced qbs. We will see who survives the meat grinder year 2 tho. 

13 hours ago, Noeller said:

It's tough with only being able to roster 2 QBs without impacting the rest of the lineup... 

Qft. Time to make it 3 qbs on the ar with one being Canadian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BigBlueFanatic said:

We’re now at a time when “veteran back up” means guys like Pipkin, Harker etc…. Potentials like Caleb Evans, Maier and Arbuckle will want chances to be starters.

McGuire had a horrible outing in pouring rain and with all guards for an OL.  Definitely would be ok with him getting well-timed opportunities next year with the full starting offence and playbook.

Not saying he’s automatically the future but I always think of Anthony Calvillo and the Sacramento Goldminers getting steamrolled by a Dunigan-led Bombers in the mid 90’s.  How many people wrote him off as a never-will-be (me included).  Just saying sometimes management sticks with someone for a reason and it works out every now and then.

I was heavily critical of McGuire after the Montreal game... and I still stand by it... but I also added the caveat I that expect the coaching staff to stick with him and I have confidence he can recover from this... I (and all of us) still have no idea if he will actually be any good... but you don't stick with a QB that long just to throw him away after one bad start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2021-11-21 at 5:39 PM, JCon said:

Veteran back-up = not developing our next QB. 

You have to pick one or the other. 

The rule of not allowing three qbs to dress is one of the dumbest rules the CFL has. Bring it back & dress 3. That way teams can have a veteran backup qb & a young developmental qb dressed. The absolute stupidity to save a few bucks affecting the quality of play is ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

The rule of not allowing three qbs to dress is one of the dumbest rules the CFL has. Bring it back & dress 3. That way teams can have a veteran backup qb & a young developmental qb dressed. The absolute stupidity to save a few bucks affecting the quality of play is ridiculous. 

Completely agree,  we have seen a few instances of teams being forced to put a receiver in at QB because both rostered QBs go down in injuries.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

The rule of not allowing three qbs to dress is one of the dumbest rules the CFL has. Bring it back & dress 3. That way teams can have a veteran backup qb & a young developmental qb dressed. The absolute stupidity to save a few bucks affecting the quality of play is ridiculous. 

There is no rule against it just the 3rd would count as a DI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

The rule of not allowing three qbs to dress is one of the dumbest rules the CFL has. Bring it back & dress 3. That way teams can have a veteran backup qb & a young developmental qb dressed. The absolute stupidity to save a few bucks affecting the quality of play is ridiculous. 

it was embarrassing to the league that BC had to put Reilly back in the game when they were getting stomped by the Bombers... would've been a good chance for a rookie to get some time in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jpan85 said:

There is no rule against it just the 3rd would count as a DI

I looked at the rules. There are only 2 QB spots. Once you declare a player as a QB, they can't play another position. There's no specific rule about bringing a QB in as a DI but I doubt you could roster a QB as a DI. In short a QB takes a QB spot on the roster and there are only 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I looked at the rules. There are only 2 QB spots. Once you declare a player as a QB, they can't play another position. There's no specific rule about bringing a QB in as a DI but I doubt you could roster a QB as a DI. In short a QB takes a QB spot on the roster and there are only 2.

Quote

Of the 46 players named to the roster, each team may dress an active roster of 45 players, broken down as follows:

  • Maximum of 2 QBs (no designation)
  • Maximum of 20 American players (4 of which must be identified as designated Americans)
  • Minimum of 21 National players
  • Minimum of 2 Global players

The four designated American players are players who can play on special teams OR replace an American starter (they cannot start).

All the rule says is that only 2 QB will not count against the ratio. You can have 10 QB on the roster if you want but 8 will count against the ratio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I looked at the rules. There are only 2 QB spots. Once you declare a player as a QB, they can't play another position. There's no specific rule about bringing a QB in as a DI but I doubt you could roster a QB as a DI. In short a QB takes a QB spot on the roster and there are only 2.

Are you referencing Article 5 only?
 This discussion seems familiar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jpan85 said:

All the rule says is that only 2 QB will not count against the ratio. You can have 10 QB on the roster if you want but 8 will count against the ratio.

Quote

Article 5 — Designated Quarterback

Prior to the game, a team is required to designate two players who shall be permitted to alternate for each other during the game at the Quarterback position exclusively. Not more than one such player may be in the game at any time and neither of them can enter the game as a member of Team B.

PENALTY: L25 PLS DR or L25 PBD or option.

NOTE: For the purposes of this Article 5, the duties of the Quarterback position may include punting, place kicking and kicking off.

NOTE: A team is required to have one designated quarterback or kicker on the field for each of its offensive plays.

Quote

The four designated American players are players who can play on special teams OR replace an American starter (they cannot start).

From Article 23 of the CBA:

Quote

... there shall not be more than twenty (20) American Players, which shall include four (4) designated American Players and which shall exclude quarterbacks on the Active Roster of each Member Club for regular season, playoff and Grey Cup games

The way I read the above: QB's aren't designated as an American starter, therefore they shouldn't be able to replace them during a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

From Article 23 of the CBA:

The way I read the above: QB's aren't designated as an American starter, therefore they shouldn't be able to replace them during a game.

What’s the purpose of article 5. Jpan85 seems to have provided the most logical explanation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

I just remember at the time everyone said that there was nothing stopping a team from having 3 QB on the roster they would just loose one of the other roster players 

Yes it's been discussed on here as well as on other media sites, by people far more in the know. You CAN dress 3 QBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of the rules, Quarterback is being used as the designated 2 spots on the roster list, not in the number of people who can play the position.  As someone else pointed out, if QB1 and QB2 were to be injured in a game, someone else (like a receiver) would have to step in to take the snaps.  List the 3rd QB under any position you want, they use up one of the American (and likely DI) spots on the roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rod Black said:

What’s the purpose of article 5. Jpan85 seems to have provided the most logical explanation. 

Article 5 says only 2 QB's & only one on the field at a time. If teams could dress a third QB, they couldn't be designated as a QB. That would circumvent the rule that QB's can only play QB and the only one QB on the field at a time parts of Acticle 5. Last season MOS said we couldn't roster Streveler as anything but a QB because we'd designated him as a QB and couldn't change that designation once it had been made at the league level. (I can't find a rule that says this, but I believe MOS.)

If it were as simple as rostering a 3rd QB that wasn't called a QB, a lot of teams would roster a 3rd string Canadian or Global QB because they don't take up a DI. All it would cost is the worst Canadian or Global player on the roster and that's way less of a downside than needing a QB and having to use a receiver or DB.

Using Streveler as an example. We sign him and put him in as the 3rd QB/DI. Now he can play at the same time as Collaros & he can play QB/RB/Receiver. We could even start him at one of those spots and keep the DI designation for some other player. All of that is completely against Article 5.

Using Rourke as an example. As a Canadian, you could roster him as the 3rd sting QB without giving up a DI spot & he could play any position & he could be on the field at the same time as Reilly & he'd be on the roster as a Canadian instead of as a QB. This is obviously not the intent of the rules.

Logic and CFL rules don't necessarily go hand in hand. The Canadian player rules for example. 

Personally, I don't think that QB's should be a separate designation. The rules should be x Canadians, y Americans and z Globals. Let QB's play any position & let more than one of them be on the field if the coaches choose to, but all of that is against Article 5.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Article 5 says only 2 QB's & only one on the field at a time. If teams could dress a third QB, they couldn't be designated as a QB. That would circumvent the rule that QB's can only play QB and the only one QB on the field at a time parts of Acticle 5. Last season MOS said we couldn't roster Streveler as anything but a QB because we'd designated him as a QB and couldn't change that designation once it had been made at the league level. (I can't find a rule that says this, but I believe MOS.)

If it were as simple as rostering a 3rd QB that wasn't called a QB, a lot of teams would roster a 3rd string Canadian or Global QB because they don't take up a DI. All it would cost is the worst Canadian or Global player on the roster and that's way less of a downside than needing a QB and having to use a receiver or DB.

Using Streveler as an example. We sign him and put him in as the 3rd QB/DI. Now he can play at the same time as Collaros & he can play QB/RB/Receiver. We could even start him at one of those spots and keep the DI designation for some other player. All of that is completely against Article 5.

Using Rourke as an example. As a Canadian, you could roster him as the 3rd sting QB without giving up a DI spot & he could play any position & he could be on the field at the same time as Reilly & he'd be on the roster as a Canadian instead of as a QB. This is obviously not the intent of the rules.

Logic and CFL rules don't necessarily go hand in hand. The Canadian player rules for example. 

Personally, I don't think that QB's should be a separate designation. The rules should be x Canadians, y Americans and z Globals. Let QB's play any position & let more than one of them be on the field if the coaches choose to, but all of that is against Article 5.

 

 

 

I think you only have to look as far as what happened in Ottawa this year when both designated QB's were injured and a non designated QB came in to play. Pretty sure this ends the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...