Starting line-ups:

2 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

In a 35-30 league we're going to try to win 20-18. No playmakers at receiver, can't pass protect, intermittent pass rush, 3/5ths of our secondary can't cover but we have 4 American spots purely dedicated to special teams.

WINNING COMBO! and we take excessive days off from practice....I'd also like to hear the reasoning behind that move

2 hours ago, Booch said:

Yeah Smith should be at Wil and where he has taken majority of his defensive reps at essentially....but glad he has been bumped to a starter...tho not happy as to why

Woodbey I agree is the better sam option....but maybe we will see moving around and they are interchangeable....that being said we also need to minimize all the shuffling as its causing a lot of the grief....and that Hazen add for Friffin....just an utter waste of a roster spot

I do think it is a good possibility that we move those two around a lot.

1 hour ago, bluto said:

Redblacks changed 7.

Yikes.

1 hour ago, bigg jay said:

After seeing the way Walters tried to sell Daniels in the draft room ("6'6, 260, s**t kicking blocker... mean motherf**ker") and then watching the guy play soft as butter. I don't know that they can evaluate guys before they get here either.

Nailed it. Walters is the primary Canadian side scout, but the US scouts don't seem more competent.

Gimpy Brady O and Chris-Ike is the only backup? Maybe we should have changed out one of the gazillion LB's for a backup RB.

12 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Gimpy Brady O and Chris-Ike is the only backup? Maybe we should have changed out one of the gazillion LB's for a backup RB.

Or at least some receivers since our oc doesn't like to run anyway

3 hours ago, Booch said:

WINNING COMBO! and we take excessive days off from practice....I'd also like to hear the reasoning behind that move

Come on man, as a football player you should know better.....it was because they were tired!

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Gimpy Brady O and Chris-Ike is the only backup? Maybe we should have changed out one of the gazillion LB's for a backup RB.

Matthew Peterson will be activated if Brady can't go, according to Our Man Tait...

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Gimpy Brady O and Chris-Ike is the only backup? Maybe we should have changed out one of the gazillion LB's for a backup RB.

thats the smart thing to do....and....how often do we see smart here???

31 minutes ago, MrFreakzilla said:

Come on man, as a football player you should know better.....it was because they were tired!

oh damn my bad...yes tired....haha....doing a lil cardio in practice would never helpthat...extra days off help the aerobic capacity....i'm a total Osh!

7 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Matthew Peterson will be activated if Brady can't go, according to Our Man Tait...

He should be on roster regardless...well with our history of playing gimps not good to go and all...and if he is to get re-injured if they decide he plays...or is labouring and a risk to hurt himself further, it's nice to have adequate backup...but again that would be a smart roster makeup

8 hours ago, Booch said:

I see it's Hazen...well done Osh...well done....Not like a receiver...maybe a cover db...the DE we brought back would have been of more use

But lets add another LB who will if lucky take some reps on ST's...didnt last time he was rostered but prob was really givener in practice this all week...oh crap...we didnt even practice the full week...needed tues off for some reason....Smart move with QB coming back from 4 weeks inactivity...possibly needing to have a game ready replacement for BO if he cant go...not to mention all the assignemnt errors we still have...why get all the extra reps and schemes down pat....

Who wants to bet we dont come out looking flat and unprepared.....anyone???

We have just one OL (Eli) listed as backup. If anyone goes down we are truly ******. But we dressed 100 linebackers & 35 DL. WTF is with our roster??? Every bloody game we have this ****.

2 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

We have just one OL (Eli) listed as backup. If anyone goes down we are truly ******. But we dressed 100 linebackers & 35 DL. WTF is with our roster??? Every bloody game we have this ****.

I think Younger must enjoy watching his players run on and off the field all game long. Blowing assignments and looking lost the majority of the time. Maybe that's why the defense is so tired.

30 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

We have just one OL (Eli) listed as backup. If anyone goes down we are truly ******. But we dressed 100 linebackers & 35 DL. WTF is with our roster??? Every bloody game we have this ****.

Schmekel is the emergency OL and 7th OL. Plus Daniels. The quantity of blockers isn't an issue. Quality, on the other hand, is.

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

Matthew Peterson will be activated if Brady can't go, according to Our Man Tait...

How does that help if Brady goes down in game?

We have seen what happens when one OL goes down, I don't think it would be unwise to dress 7, SSK and MTL both do it and they are pretty good teams.

7 minutes ago, Atomic said:

We have seen what happens when one OL goes down, I don't think it would be unwise to dress 7, SSK and MTL both do it and they are pretty good teams.

Cannot be down because of the N.I.H. factor.

12 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

How does that help if Brady goes down in game?

Exactly..not having adequate backup already listed is dumb..if he can't go then we could dress vibert and have coverage on oline.

And we all know there is a good chance that if he isnt really good to go...but could play but be less than normal we will play him...history had shown that repeatedly

1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

Schmekel is the emergency OL and 7th OL. Plus Daniels. The quantity of blockers isn't an issue. Quality, on the other hand, is.

God, we build a roster like a last place team. maybe that's where we deserve to be. Why the blasted **** do we need 10 backup linebackers???? Just one backup OL. We have a $600,000 a year qb & we protect him with just **** for blockers.

It's getting to the point with thesse crazy roster decisions that I'd like to see the worst case scenario happen... call it the nuclear option... that our roster gets destroyed by the stupidity of Osh & his coaches. Just to teach these idiots a lesson. I have no ideas WTF they are doing. It's certainly not to give us the best roster to win.

Honestly we used to dress 7 ol and I hated it. Was a waste of a roster spot.

Like what purpose does that extra ol serve other than in case of injury? But if you lose 2 ol in a game you're probably hooped anyway.

When it comes to the roster, every week I read it and its like:

19 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Honestly we used to dress 7 ol and I hated it. Was a waste of a roster spot.

Like what purpose does that extra ol serve other than in case of injury? But if you lose 2 ol in a game you're probably hooped anyway.

It's always okay until it isn't.

28 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Honestly we used to dress 7 ol and I hated it. Was a waste of a roster spot.

Like what purpose does that extra ol serve other than in case of injury? But if you lose 2 ol in a game you're probably hooped anyway.

I don't know, I think it was so bad when Wallace had to play RT, I'd rather have Vanterpool dressed and doing nothing rather than an LB like Hazen who probably won't do much other than special teams which they have plenty of already... Do we need Ayers, Hazen and Woodbey...?

21 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I don't know, I think it was so bad when Wallace had to play RT, I'd rather have Vanterpool dressed and doing nothing rather than an LB like Hazen who probably won't do much other than special teams which they have plenty of already... Do we need Ayers, Hazen and Woodbey...?

No we don't need that many linebackers either. Our receiver depth is both lacklustre and paper thin.

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Honestly we used to dress 7 ol and I hated it. Was a waste of a roster spot.

Like what purpose does that extra ol serve other than in case of injury? But if you lose 2 ol in a game you're probably hooped anyway.

7th ol vs a te who can’t run or block, but also with other back up blockers.

You need some extremely versatile guys who create opportunities to carry specialists with low use. a starter who kills it on teams, or a guy who can rotate at many spots and back up all over the roster. Also finding canadians who are very good specialists or versatile is huge.

We don’t have much of that any more.

Vanterpool should be on the active roster. At the very least our 7th OL. Let him sub in for Bryant when he struggles or is tired. Vanterpool should be our RT & Broxton our LT. Nothing ever changes with Osh, though.

Edited August 14Aug 14 by SpeedFlex27

10 hours ago, Atomic said:

We have seen what happens when one OL goes down, I don't think it would be unwise to dress 7, SSK and MTL both do it and they are pretty good teams.

Yes, except people complained whenever we used to do it. Saying it's a waste to have 7 dressed.

3 hours ago, MrFreakzilla said:

Yes, except people complained whenever we used to do it. Saying it's a waste to have 7 dressed.

That's true, but to be fair, we used to dress more DL. We've always built rosters in strange ways.

It's important to remember that with the CFL roster rules and the reality of NI talent depth, you are going to be carrying suboptimal guys. And once injuries hit, it will get worse. That makes it all the more important to build and develop rosters intelligently.

Some things you need in terms of backups on a CFL roster, A db who is a man cover guy, a couple dbs who can cover a zone, a couple big bodies for the trenches, dl and ol who can go the other way, one or two wrs who can run and catch, one or two guys who can play rb, teamers, back up holder/snapper/ and emergency kicker/punter. In the modern era, you really need a backup DI and ni/g run stopper/pass rusher who is effective.

When you have 24 starters and 44/45 players on the AR, you should be able to cover those needs.

The problem starts with DI usage. You basically need a DI DL (which we neglected many times since 21), and a DI DB. Really, a DI wr as well. But we carry a DI KR and DI K. We are married to that and have been for a long time. We are also married to carrying a DI Lber for team play. Combine that with the fact that we refuse to declare a naturalized import, and we are left trying to plug Canadians into positions where you would use a DI. And the problem worsens when our scouting has been worse than hit or miss, and development of talent even worse.

We don't have the ability to roster our basic needs, and little flexibility to afford luxuries that would help us out a lot. But we spend roster allotment on luxuries, like we still have the 21 team in the locker room.