Per 3downnation, these are our free agents ... basically everyone but Zach, Vaval, Peterson, Clercius, Randolph, Wallace, Pokey Wilson, MCI, Allen, T. Jones, and Leroux the longsnapper.  

Quarterback

Chris Streveler (A)

Running back

Brady Oliveira (N)

Receiver

Kody Case (A)
Nic Demski (N)
Dillon Mitchell (A)
Dalton Schoen (A)
Jerreth Sterns (A)
Keric Wheatfall (A)

OL

Stanley Bryant (A)
Tui Eli (N)
Chris Kolankowski (N)
Eric Lofton (A)
Patrick Neufeld (N)

Defensive line

Willie Jefferson (A)
Cameron Lawson (N)
Tanner Schmekel (N)
Jake Thomas (N)
James Vaughters (A)
Jamal Woods (A)

Linebacker

Tanner Cadwallader (N)
Shayne Gauthier (N)
Kyrie Wilson (A)

Defensive back

Terrell Bonds (A)
Michael Griffin II (A)
Nick Hallett (N)
Evan Holm (A)
Demerio Houston (A)
Redha Kramdi (N)
Enock Makonzo (N)
Deatrick Nichols (A)
Jamal Parker (A)

Specialist

Sergio Castillo (A)
Jamieson Sheahan (G)

Edited November 12, 2025Nov 12 by johnzo

4 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Yea...and I am of the opinion that unless a game is completely out of reach you play your starter. It's why he's paid the big bucks. In the CFL we have watched teams come back from double digit deficits in the last 2 mins of a game on many occasions. This isn't the NFL where that would be insurmountable. I don't want my coach to ever throw in the towel on a game for the sake of getting QB2 or QB3 some reps. Just my opinion.

The more your starter plays when a game is out of reach, the more risk for injury. To me, if we're up 21 points going into the fourth quarter, I'd be pulling the starter to protect him. Also, if I was HC, i wouldn't have some clueless rookie as my backup behind Collaros, That's just plain stupid (but we're talking Osh here). I'd be screaming at Walters to sign a veteran qb who has played & has experience like MBT.

29 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Yea...and I am of the opinion that unless a game is completely out of reach you play your starter. It's why he's paid the big bucks. In the CFL we have watched teams come back from double digit deficits in the last 2 mins of a game on many occasions. This isn't the NFL where that would be insurmountable. I don't want my coach to ever throw in the towel on a game for the sake of getting QB2 or QB3 some reps. Just my opinion.

You are suggesting that you play guys based on salary? What if a team makes a mistake and overpays and then find out that the back up is the next Davis Alexander?

Putting in a back up isn't necessarily throwing in the towel. Change of pace, maybe the starter is just having a bad day?

4 minutes ago, Brandon said:

You are suggesting that you play guys based on salary? What if a team makes a mistake and overpays and then find out that the back up is the next Davis Alexander?

Putting in a back up isn't necessarily throwing in the towel. Change of pace, maybe the starter is just having a bad day?

I'm saying you PROTECT your starter from injury. Up or down.

47 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Yea...and I am of the opinion that unless a game is completely out of reach you play your starter. It's why he's paid the big bucks. In the CFL we have watched teams come back from double digit deficits in the last 2 mins of a game on many occasions. This isn't the NFL where that would be insurmountable. I don't want my coach to ever throw in the towel on a game for the sake of getting QB2 or QB3 some reps. Just my opinion.

Out of reach is a tough one, that depends as well imo. If you are in a qb controversy, qb2 might give you a much better chance to win if changed early. Outside of that, yeah, the game should be cooked when you swap. That point, imo, is generally pretty obvious when it occurs. You see the ol/dl and sometimes the D in general just gas out from the exertion and getting their tails kicked.

It's hard to go off score to say when the game is over. Sometimes we've seen this team buried by 10 points or less in the last 2 years with tons of time to play. But we've seen other versions of this team come back from massive deficits.

I think you also have to look at protecting your QB1 as well. If you are in a game where the QB is being pressured/hit half of all drop-back snaps, keeping him in to try and throw his way to victory in a lost cause is extremely risky. If you are throwing to run the clock or running, you may as well have a backup to do that.

Dru brown became what he is by and large part being forced into games and coming in to clean up.

Also, after the field changes next year, I doubt we see the comebacks very often anymore.

47 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

The biggest and most universal fallacy in all of pro football fandom is the belief that QB2 or QB3 are somehow a better option than QB1. 95% of the time it simply isn't true. I will leave a 5% because maybe QB1 is just having a really bad day, but all things being equal if your QB2 is better than your QB1 it won't take a coach much time to switch those depth chart positions around. Coaches don't coach to lose. We had nothing behind Collaros the past 2 years that would have even remotely been a better option at any point and time.

That is doubly true in the CFL during this era. The thing is, you don't get to fully develop guys without playing them. Clean-up reps are a nice stepping stone to being able to take spot starts or step in early during a game. This used to be a luxury, but with the state of QBing, it's almost a necessity that teams identify and develop QB talent urgently.

When I look at what the QB situation in this league would be 1-3 years in the future, it feels like I'm walking through a graveyard and picking out a plot. Rourke and Alexander turn 28 this year and Brown turns 29, Arbuckle turns 33 and Vaj turns 34. And thats the young guys lol. Guys like Brown, Alexander, and Arbuckle might be flashes in the pan as well.

Qbing in the CFL, is worse than the CFL draft for being a crap shoot now.

3 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

Out of reach is a tough one, that depends as well imo. If you are in a qb controversy, qb2 might give you a much better chance to win if changed early. Outside of that, yeah, the game should be cooked when you swap. That point, imo, is generally pretty obvious when it occurs. You see the ol/dl and sometimes the D in general just gas out from the exertion and getting their tails kicked.

It's hard to go off score to say when the game is over. Sometimes we've seen this team buried by 10 points or less in the last 2 years with tons of time to play. But we've seen other versions of this team come back from massive deficits.

I think you also have to look at protecting your QB1 as well. If you are in a game where the QB is being pressured/hit half of all drop-back snaps, keeping him in to try and throw his way to victory in a lost cause is extremely risky. If you are throwing to run the clock or running, you may as well have a backup to do that.

Dru brown became what he is by and large part being forced into games and coming in to clean up.

Also, after the field changes next year, I doubt we see the comebacks very often anymore.

That is doubly true in the CFL during this era. The thing is, you don't get to fully develop guys without playing them. Clean-up reps are a nice stepping stone to being able to take spot starts or step in early during a game. This used to be a luxury, but with the state of QBing, it's almost a necessity that teams identify and develop QB talent urgently.

When I look at what the QB situation in this league would be 1-3 years in the future, it feels like I'm walking through a graveyard and picking out a plot. Rourke and Alexander turn 28 this year and Brown turns 29, Arbuckle turns 33 and Vaj turns 34. And thats the young guys lol. Guys like Brown, Alexander, and Arbuckle might be flashes in the pan as well.

Qbing in the CFL, is worse than the CFL draft for being a crap shoot now.

The biggest problem is that the NFL is in the same boat down their depth charts and are now stashing more QBs on PR for longer. I think that some of the play style/systems of the NCAA offences just doesn't lend itself well to the professional game afterwards.

Just a reminder that FA officially opens in about one hour... Curious to see if we do much today at all other than confirm some of the legal tampering moves.

Santos L. Halper is coming home.

Jovan Santos-Knox agrees to terms with Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 3DownNation

Why on earth......?

Back-up vet In case/when Wilson goes down is the only thing I can think of. Not a move I was expecting...

6 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

Back-up vet In case/when Wilson goes down is the only thing I can think of. Not a move I was expecting...

Buddies and I laughing about it being the most Osh move ever... "If our aging vet goes down, we need another equally aging vet to replace him!"

"But Osh, we drafted two young stud LBs that need the reps...."

"Aging Vets!!!"

Can't say I understand this one...unless they know something about someone's health that has just happened? Why did they draft those two CNDs so high last year?

19 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

Santos L. Halper is coming home.

Jovan Santos-Knox agrees to terms with Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 3DownNation

Don’t see how he fits in with our log jam linebacking core. I know it’s weird to think but he’s 6’1 233, would they consider using him in some schemes as an end?

JSK is two years younger and better than Wilson, so I don't hate it.

Don't know why they re-signed Wilson still though

1 hour ago, Brandon said:

You are suggesting that you play guys based on salary? What if a team makes a mistake and overpays and then find out that the back up is the next Davis Alexander?

Putting in a back up isn't necessarily throwing in the towel. Change of pace, maybe the starter is just having a bad day?

If a guy is jumping off the page in practice, like Alexander was for a long time before they made the move to him, then the coaches will certainly give him a look. Like I said, if your number 2 is truly looking better than your number 1, he will get playing time. You don't need to force it. It is a fallacy that you don't know what you got until you see him in live fire. Live fire will confirm what you have seen in practice but if you are not seeing it there, there is very little chance you have some untapped potential hidden that will surprise the coaches. So no, you don't play guys based on salary, but you also don't play them just for the sake of giving them game time either...or at least not until the stakes are meaningless. If your QB1 is struggling, not seeing it that day, or for whatever reason is struggling then you can make a case for giving them the hook. However you never do that until you give QB1 a chance to try play through it. That is enormously important to the psyche of a QB.