Starting line-ups:

7 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

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.

considering we wasted a DA spot on Hazen a few games agowhere he didnt ven have to tie his shoes up...that would make more sense, and he would at least get used in jumbo/short yardage...also Nationilze Bryant and run some sets with him at left guard and Vpool or Broxton at left tackle...and see how that works..best way to see is under live fire....but that would make too much sense

3 hours ago, MrFreakzilla said:

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

But we you have created a shallow roster...and have limited usefulness with who you have on it...and especially the PR (OURS IS HORRID) you have to find ways to maximize what you have...we have too many plugs who serve no real purpose...cause anyone can play teams....so stock the backend with guys who have some potential for rotation or be a legit backup

21 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

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.

yeah...nailed it...our roster makeu is the worst in the league...and who/how we choose our DA's and backups is baffing...and doesnt appear to have any rhyme or reason....other than just guys Osh likes

And as i said before...high potential guys who cant cut the starting lineup....yet...or who actually can push an incumbant should be the back half....and play teams, all the while get some important reps here and there....not a plethora of guys who can play teams only...but you dont want on offence or defence...thats just insane...A high potential guy can play teams juyst as ell...if not better than these guys that just have good teams film....just dumb...and hence why our depth is worst in league...and its not even close

8 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

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.

Has anyone seen a noticeable difference when Vanterpool is on the roster?

1 hour ago, Jesse said:

Has anyone seen a noticeable difference when Vanterpool is on the roster?

I'm no expert but I can confidently say Vanterpool is our 3rd best option at tackle and we don't have anyone on the gameday roster behind Bryant and Broxton who can play tackle. Wallace just isn't good enough and they don't use Neufeld, Elsbury or Eli there at all. If a tackle goes down in the first half, the game is an auto-loss and probably an injury for whoever is at QB. It's unlikely yet catastrophic when it does occur.

3 hours ago, wbbfan said:

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.

I appreciate your observations of the roster. I don't know much about building CFL rosters, so this is very helpful. I wonder why our Bombers media folk aren't asking specific questions about the roster (i.e. DI usage)? It would be nice to hear O'Shea's perspective on this.

2 hours ago, Jesse said:

Has anyone seen a noticeable difference when Vanterpool is on the roster?

He's only been on the roster for one game this season so is that enough of a sample size to make an accurate comparison?

To my wildly untrained eye, I thought Vanterpool did enough to justify staying on the roster and moving Brox over to LT...

We are 3 injuries away from playing a defensive player at receiver or running back or having to play 6 OL the entire game.

Really to me the big problem is the draft.

Find some of those guys who can be good special teamers but also your depth at receiver. Calgary's 3rd round pick in 2026 is a receiver leading the league in special teams tackles, for example. We have Daniels who can't win any routes downfield, can't block, and can't play special teams.

56 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

He's only been on the roster for one game this season so is that enough of a sample size to make an accurate comparison?

He's been here for 3 years, I know the coaches are the devil around here, but I think if he was demonstratably better he'd be on the roster for more than one game, eh?

33 minutes ago, Jesse said:

He's been here for 3 years, I know the coaches are the devil around here, but I think if he was demonstratably better he'd be on the roster for more than one game, eh?

Sounds like it's time to get rid of him and try someone else. One game in 3 years. Why is he still here?

55 minutes ago, Jesse said:

He's been here for 3 years, I know the coaches are the devil around here, but I think if he was demonstratably better he'd be on the roster for more than one game, eh?

Same coaches that keep trotting out Bryant even though he's demonstrably not the same player?

Players can progress and if he hasn't proven to the coaches that he's able to play over all that time, then why is he still here?

On 2026-08-13 at 9:17 AM, Booch said:

only adjustment made due to injury (Griffin) and not shocked...Starting 8 Canadians when not required...Wonder what kind of a waste of a pick Osh used for an import to replace Griffin....and if they will see field in any way...St or other...prob not

8 NATS are definitely required according to the CFL rule book.

1 hour ago, bigg jay said:

Same coaches that keep trotting out Bryant even though he's demonstrably not the same player?

Players can progress and if he hasn't proven to the coaches that he's able to play over all that time, then why is he still here?

Lack of a better option?

2 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

8 NATS are definitely required according to the CFL rule book.

Lack of a better option?

8 that includes the nationalized one..we have 8 not counting that

5 hours ago, Jesse said:

Has anyone seen a noticeable difference when Vanterpool is on the roster?

No. Not at OT. He is not a good OT. We tried him and he was arguably worse than Bryant. So for those arguing that Stan should be gone....it's not a good situation either way.

20 hours 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 ****.

It's not often you see any team dress more than 6 OL. That's not unusual at all.

1 minute ago, Booch said:

8 that includes the nationalized one..we have 8 not counting that

Who is our nationalized one? I'd love to use the Nationalized IMP...just not sure we have the ability to do so for an entire game.

Edited August 14Aug 14 by GCn20

Bad news for people advocating for 7 OL on account of teams like Saskatchewan dressing 7. Riders officially swapped out a Lineman for a Receiver so they only have 6 this weekend.

If I recall the Riders are the only team the past few years who have had to give a DL the temp jersey and send them out to the OLine.

And based on last year if we ran out of receivers we wouldnt toss a DB out there, it would end up being Perkins!

3 hours ago, BomberFanInSask said:

I appreciate your observations of the roster. I don't know much about building CFL rosters, so this is very helpful. I wonder why our Bombers media folk aren't asking specific questions about the roster (i.e. DI usage)? It would be nice to hear O'Shea's perspective on this.

Np, the media is more complacent than the mafia is. They packed in the hard questions and such before we won in 19.

20 minutes ago, ShyGuy said:

Bad news for people advocating for 7 OL on account of teams like Saskatchewan dressing 7. Riders officially swapped out a Lineman for a Receiver so they only have 6 this weekend.

If I recall the Riders are the only team the past few years who have had to give a DL the temp jersey and send them out to the OLine.

And based on last year if we ran out of receivers we wouldnt toss a DB out there, it would end up being Perkins!

OL is always a gamble when it comes to how many guys you put on the AR. Every year, every team will gamble many times. The only way you can create a non-gambling situation is with a ratio-breaking Canadian, or great depth and versatility.

I will say, when you are struggling to protect the QB, it is best to gamble on wasting a spot than it is to risk being short on the OL. I look at our WR core and can not imagine us doing worse with 1 more ol and 1 less wr. Which could be an import even.

4 hours ago, Atomic said:

I'm no expert but I can confidently say Vanterpool is our 3rd best option at tackle and we don't have anyone on the gameday roster behind Bryant and Broxton who can play tackle. Wallace just isn't good enough and they don't use Neufeld, Elsbury or Eli there at all. If a tackle goes down in the first half, the game is an auto-loss and probably an injury for whoever is at QB. It's unlikely yet catastrophic when it does occur.

IMO, Poncius is our 2nd best option at T. Then Vanterpool as the 3rd best, very close to Elsbury sliding over. Elsbury has the tangibles to play outside, and none of the intangibles or the power to play inside well enough. Maybe he can develop, but without power, I don't think he has the upside you need in a starting Imp interior ol. Between Elsbury and Eli we have 1 C that fits our needs. Id put Wallace at RT above Bryant. At least he can battle and get his hands on guys.

5 hours ago, Jesse said:

Has anyone seen a noticeable difference when Vanterpool is on the roster?

Yes, in the run game. This year and last year, albeit in very limited volume. He's physical as hell and has a great edge to him.

3 hours ago, Noeller said:

To my wildly untrained eye, I thought Vanterpool did enough to justify staying on the roster and moving Brox over to LT...

Agree. Rando could become an excellent RT. He isn't where you want him to be right now, but he is a good improvement with a chance to be great. I think he is plug and play great inside though. Teach him to snap the ball and replace Elsbury.

Edited August 14Aug 14 by wbbfan

29 minutes ago, ShyGuy said:

Bad news for people advocating for 7 OL on account of teams like Saskatchewan dressing 7.

That is bad news. That's the worst news I've heard all day. Which means its been a pretty good day so far, since that news is not actually that bad. One way or another I always come out ahead. Message board man gets paid.

14 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

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.

Know what I would do? Drop elsbury, start Eli at C and have vanterpool as the 6th OL. No need for a 7th ok. Just use the pieces you have properly.

3 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

We are 3 injuries away from playing a defensive player at receiver or running back or having to play 6 OL the entire game.

Really to me the big problem is the draft.

Find some of those guys who can be good special teamers but also your depth at receiver. Calgary's 3rd round pick in 2026 is a receiver leading the league in special teams tackles, for example. We have Daniels who can't win any routes downfield, can't block, and can't play special teams.

How many times did Streveler need to go in and play reciever? Way too many for those who didn't keep track.

3 hours ago, Gail said:

Sounds like it's time to get rid of him and try someone else. One game in 3 years. Why is he still here?

With O'Shea, it could be that the goat entrails he consults were unfavourable.

3 hours ago, Gail said:

Sounds like it's time to get rid of him and try someone else. One game in 3 years. Why is he still here?

1 game this year. 9 games in total over 2.5 seasons.

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

It's not often you see any team dress more than 6 OL. That's not unusual at all.

Back in the day you had your Front Four who played nearly every down for 16 games. They even gave defensive lines names like Capital Punishment in Ottawa, the Four Trees in Calgary & Alberta Crude in Edmonton. The units as a whole played pretty well using minimal subs. Now today ,we use subs to keep the DL fresh. Okay, I get that but why do we need to sub in 3 extra players when one extra player would suffice?

If Jefferson or Reece get tired & want out for a couple of plays then you just work it around that. The sub actually gets to play a lot instead of wholesale changes on the line with 3 in the game. Football on the LOS hasn't changed in 60 years. It's still tough, nasty & physical in the pit. The guys in the 60's & 70's went thru the same thing the players today do during a game.The starters played 90% of the plays & they stayed in there. Yet, here we are taking our starters out for 3 subs.

Maybe I'm out to lunch on this but I don't understand the need for 7 DL in a game. Only 1 on the OL with both a 40 & a 37 year old starters. Our OL is freaking ancient.

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Know what I would do? Drop elsbury, start Eli at C and have vanterpool as the 6th OL. No need for a 7th ok. Just use the pieces you have properly.

I would've kept Randolph... said to Big Stan "hey goat, you're 40 now so it's safe to assume you always have a back issue. How does 6-game/assistant OL coach sound?"... then worked Wallace or Neuf at C... started a line of Broxton-Vanterpool-Neufeld-Wallace-Randolph.... if you're gonna have a 3-american OL... they need to be dominant... I don't know if my proposed group is "dominant"... but I have a hard time believing it's worse than what we've seen

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

Who is our nationalized one? I'd love to use the Nationalized IMP...just not sure we have the ability to do so for an entire game.

no clue...never been disclosed...and Osh never seems to utilize it anyway