With Rookie Camps getting underway Wednesday, it's time to talk about the 2026 CFL season!

The only tragedy is that he took someone, who did nothing wrong, with him. The rest is his own stupid decision.

Just for discussion....

The anti-analytics traditional football people (like MOS) will hate it, but damn if it doesn't make sense.

13 hours ago, Noeller said:

Just for discussion....

That data actually kind of harms the point he's trying to make. It's not that wide of a difference and it's not exactly controlled as the 2 point tries are the outliers....meaning D are also less prepared to defend 2 point plays. The data could even out if everyone went for 2 all the time and everyone was prepared for it. Most times now when it happens the D is half subbed off the field, has to get back out there etc.

The other piece is looking at it in aggregate vs game situations.

A lot of data out of American Football would tell you that you would score more points in aggregate if you never punted too. But how would you apply that to game situations? You're going to go for it on 3rd and 8 from your own 25 yard line all the time? Give the other team the ball in the redzone a bunch of times?

Edited July 23Jul 23 by JuranBoldenRules

21 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

That data actually kind of harms the point he's trying to make. It's not that wide of a difference and it's not exactly controlled as the 2 point tries are the outliers....meaning D are also less prepared to defend 2 point plays. The data could basically reverse if everyone went for 2 all the time and everyone was prepared for it. Most times now when it happens the D is half subbed off the field, has to get back out there etc.

The other piece is looking at it in aggregate vs game situations.

A lot of data out of American Football would tell you that you would score more points in aggregate if you never punted too. But how would you apply that to game situations? You're going to go for it on 3rd and 8 from your own 25 yard line all the time? Give the other team the ball in the redzone a bunch of times?

Not mention that in any given game you may only score a couple touchdowns. The stats don't mean that you're going to make one of two 2 point converts. Stats don't care that you missed the first one and now need to score the second one to make up for the lost point on the first.

Through week 7 Calgary has scored the most TDs with 26. If you apply the percentages above to those numbers if they had always gone for 2, they would have scored 28 points after, vs 23 for kicking points (even though they are actually at 96% extra points, so 25). It is barely a difference.

I will say that I agree with going for 2 point converts a lot more.

Seems to mostly be very situational....like do it when you need to late in the 4th Q to tie.

If you come out first offensive drive of the game and drive right down the field for 6, why wouldn't you go for the extra point (2 point convert) on the D that's already on it's heels? It's also the lowest risk time to take that risk. You have a ton of time to get the point back if you don't convert.

Edited July 23Jul 23 by JuranBoldenRules

For the record this is a pretty well documented thing in prospect theory.

DT points out that it is more effective to go for 2 based on expected points but people want to go for 1 because they are adverse to getting 0 points.

This is expected but irrational

3 minutes ago, ShyGuy said:

For the record this is a pretty well documented thing in prospect theory.

DT points out that it is more effective to go for 2 based on expected points but people want to go for 1 because they are adverse to getting 0 points.

This is expected but irrational

The flaw in the theory is you're directly playing another team. Not simply to score the most points possible and put up a score like golf.

Total points matter less than finishing with 1 more point than the other team.

Just now, JuranBoldenRules said:

The flaw in the theory is you're directly playing another team. Not simply to score the most points possible and put up a score like golf.

Total points matter less than finishing with 1 more point than the other team.

Last I checked the goal of the game is to score more points than the other team.

Going for 2 makes it more likely to happen

8 minutes ago, ShyGuy said:

For the record this is a pretty well documented thing in prospect theory.

DT points out that it is more effective to go for 2 based on expected points but people want to go for 1 because they are adverse to getting 0 points.

This is expected but irrational

I wonder if this view changes next year when FGs become very few and far between.

2 minutes ago, ShyGuy said:

Last I checked the goal of the game is to score more points than the other team.

Going for 2 makes it more likely to happen

By 0.2 of a point in aggregate. So basically no difference aside from the 0.1 risk of missing the kick in aggregate. 90% to get 1 point, just over 50% to get 2.

Again, no accounting for game situation. Down 1 with 5 seconds left, go for 2 (coin flip) vs go for 1 (90%) to get into OT with more plays, more chances to win.

Should be going for 2 more. But that data doesn't really give the meaning to that cause (always go for 2) that DT thinks.

Edited July 23Jul 23 by JuranBoldenRules

Just now, JuranBoldenRules said:

But that data doesn't really give the meaning to that cause that DT thinks.

This can be applied to DT a lot.... I mean good in him for looking at a lot of different things but I find he speaks with entirely too much certainty about what his numbers say when it's not always so cut and dried.

The stats are based on the current reality of only going for 2 a small percentage of the time. If teams started going more often, the number of successes would likely go down as defenses would change to stop them.

The orthodoxy either way is the problem.

The 2 point converts should be used tactically.

The problem is coaches tend to be on one side or the other.

I've been in clinics in the States with the Arkansas HS guy who didn't punt. Then there's schools in Texas and other states doing it. No one has really done it here yet (Canadian Football is a lot different tactically IMO when it comes to special teams). It's kind of remarkably stupid as a theory. Like the reasons why it worked were kind of ignored. Some of these places have 3-5 star recruits across the board. Their margin for error and making back negative points is quite high. The real strategy is just trying to get the most possessions possible. All factors are not always equal. I can't get to the place of almost completely ignoring game situation, not playing defense.

moot point...Osh will never go for 2...even when it makes sense....just as we never see any trickery now...fake punt/fg///nothing...Dudes lost his plums somewhere in the 2021 area

It's definitely an interesting discussion.

The Calgary/Sask game is an interesting case point. Calgary scores a late TD to come within 1. If you kick the field goal you have a 9% chance of losing right there, or a 91% chance of going to overtime where they ultimately lose. Or you go for two and have a 55% chance of winning right there and a 45% of losing. Most (almost all?) coaches will take their chances in overtime... The blame shifts a bit too, if a kicker misses that's on the kicker, if the 2 pt conversion fails it's on the coach

3 minutes ago, ShyGuy said:

It's definitely an interesting discussion.

The Calgary/Sask game is an interesting case point. Calgary scores a late TD to come within 1. If you kick the field goal you have a 9% chance of losing right there, or a 91% chance of going to overtime where they ultimately lose. Or you go for two and have a 55% chance of winning right there and a 45% of losing. Most (almost all?) coaches will take their chances in overtime... The blame shifts a bit too, if a kicker misses that's on the kicker, if the 2 pt conversion fails it's on the coach

That is a big part of it...blame. Go against the regular flow and don't succeed, you're a moron.

46 minutes ago, Booch said:

moot point...Osh will never go for 2...even when it makes sense....just as we never see any trickery now...fake punt/fg///nothing...Dudes lost his plums somewhere in the 2021 area

I think one is safe in saying MOS is quite a conservative coach that at times is a great stength and at other times not so much.

33 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

I think one is safe in saying MOS is quite a conservative coach that at times is a great stength and at other times not so much.

great trait when team is stacked and on autopilot essentially and just winning on good given skill and talent being better than most...not so much when you have a thin roster of front line talent...a lot of weak spots...and minimal depth, and seem unprepared more often than not tho...need to do something to at times change the tide or catch a team sleeping

16 hours ago, Rex_Banner said:

Rider Fans who were so smug about Kenny Lawler getting a DUI better take a long hard look in the mirror today.

sometimes getting a DUI may be the best thing to happen to someone... may have prevented a future tragedy like the Dalke situation

On 2026-07-22 at 3:00 AM, SpeedFlex27 said:

My understanding he was returning home from Leduc to Regina after the team.s bye. I'm of the same opinion, there's no way Dalke should be honoured until we know more about what happened & if he had drugs &/or alcohol in his system at the crash. However, the Riders will do what they want to do. Was Dalke suicidal? Did he want to be killed? We'll probably never know that but if he had CTE that might go a long way in explaining what happened.

this is the part that really sticks out to me... because the RCMP report said he was going north in the southbound lane... if he was going from Leduc to Regina (or Lumsden to Regina) he should be travelling south, yet he went north... I'm not one to jump to conclusions but it sure seems like there may have something else going on that would make him go the completely wrong direction...

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

The stats are based on the current reality of only going for 2 a small percentage of the time. If teams started going more often, the number of successes would likely go down as defenses would change to stop them.

It's really not that easy to game plan to take that pass away in the CFL.

It starts as a question of whether you play off or do you play tight? If you play off, like dru brown did vs. Ott, you can 1-step throw for easy wins. If you play tight, a rub route, good 1-on-1 WR, motion, and the waggle can very easily be used to cook the D.

This is what we see league-wide right now. Teams can dink and dunk at will, and Ds can't stop it. Over such a short distance to gain, Ds can't expect to use the sideline or even the back of the end zone to leverage coverage.

Thats before you work in running/qb runs, and using the option to take a man away from the D.

Dejon Allen Released from Lions

7 minutes ago, ShyGuy said:

Dejon Allen Released from Lions

Id sign him...slot him right into Rt..shift Broxton and either reserve roster Stan...or try him at guard amd swap out Elsbury for either Eli or Vibert..and if that doesn't shore things up reconfig the interior till it does..lotsa time still to make it work

Wallace has taken snaps at center too no? Maybe thats his calling..

Edited July 23Jul 23 by Booch

Do we think Dejon can cut the mustard?

Jake Paul is suggesting that he's better than most current NFL receivers and reports that many NFL teams have reached out to him.

I'm sure this has caught the attention of the Argos (maybe machoochoo in Montreal) and are probably calling an urgent meeting to statregize on how to sign him.