Starting line-ups:

7 hours ago, Jesse said:

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

He may not be the best but he;s not the worst either. He needs shaps in a game to really develop but he's another youner guy being blocked from starting because the old guys in Bryant & Neufeld on the line refuse to retire. Osh just lets them guys play. Vanterpool just sits.

8 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.

That is an outstanding evaluation. Great job.

1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Elsbury did play a bit on college too...so it wouldnt be foreign to him...and if we arent or hadnt gave him reps there at all in camp/practice thats also pretty short sighted

Only real talk of him I recall is Osh fascinated by the size of his legs...guess that sealed the deal and a starter he was lol

We should teach Scmeck how to snap...He be probably a real tencious s.o.b as a center...He's built for it

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.

yeah...make more sense than having Hazen on

9 minutes ago, bearpants said:

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

yeah...If you are sacrificing a playmaker on offence...or a difference maker on defence for a 3rd import olineman...he needs to be a perenial all star...not a average at best guy

We'll have to put who some people think Tui Eli is in the Ring of Honour.

9 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

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.

One of the biggest differences is the size, athleticism, and talent of opposing Ts and OL in general. Back in those days, even back not that long ago, OL were canadian ham n egger types. Now we have guys like Tyler Elsbury. He's faster than a handful of our skill position players, 6'6 and 333lbs. Our 2nd-best T (imo) is Hunter, who is 6'8 330 jumps a 30" vert, can put up 30 reps, and jumps almost 9 feet broad.

The average DL is getting smaller in the CFL. We see far more 235- 249 lb DEs, and a lot more tweeners 275 and under who play DT and edge.

Even if you are a bigger DE, say 265-270 and not playing inside, you are giving up an insane amount of weight to the T every single snap. Playing inside is even rougher, as you are likely to be hit by multiple OL.

DL has gotten more athletic as well, but premium big athletes seldom go to DT over OT these days. OT is a vacuum at all levels, sucking up the best and biggest players teams can find. The gap, though, has gone from a size vs. athleticism battle on the edge to DL having to punch up in weight. The evolution of sports training has guys focused much more on explosive quickness and 10-yard splits rather than basic cardio-style run-jump stuff. And those fast-twitch muscles need more rest, and so does the whole athlete who is fighting an uphill battle.

A tired DE, might be at 50%. But a rusher under 90% is likely to get his butt whupped unless he is elite.

Another harsh reality of life in the CFL is that we don't get the polished players we used to. We seldom see pass rushers come up with more than a raw skill set and maybe 1 decent move anymore. The easiest way to succeed on the DL and create disruption is to cycle through guys quickly and keep them running as hard as they can, subbing them to keep them fresh.

The longer your recovery system is in stay-fresh mode and not in heavy recovery mode, the better as well. If you are tired in the first quarter, you will not recover to 100%. You will peak lower, and each time you tire, the cycle will repeat.

The OL also has the tremendous advantage of knowing what they will be doing before the snap and being able to dictate the play. Having to react and try to stop what you don't know demands a great deal of athleticism to overcome. As well as other factors, it is a great drain on athleticism. Speed is a butt saver as much as anything on D.

Actively subbing high-wear positions is spreading like wildfire across football. It isn't just DL; it's RBs and more sharing the load. OL, WR, and DB are really the outliers in this area. WR and DB are paired in being less physically demanding and being tuned more for marathon-type activity. Ol, is so thin across all levels of football that the drop-off after the 5th guy is far too steep.

Edited August 14Aug 14 by wbbfan

They could easily sub out Hazen for Singer and start Singer over Cobb without making any other changes since they are currently starting an extra Canadian.

57 minutes ago, Atomic said:

They could easily sub out Hazen for Singer and start Singer over Cobb without making any other changes since they are currently starting an extra Canadian.

It is just that easy...and makes us better..but..........

3 hours ago, wbbfan said:

One of the biggest differences is the size, athleticism, and talent of opposing Ts and OL in general. Back in those days, even back not that long ago, OL were canadian ham n egger types. Now we have guys like Tyler Elsbury. He's faster than a handful of our skill position players, 6'6 and 333lbs. Our 2nd-best T (imo) is Hunter, who is 6'8 330 jumps a 30" vert, can put up 30 reps, and jumps almost 9 feet broad.

The average DL is getting smaller in the CFL. We see far more 235- 249 lb DEs, and a lot more tweeners 275 and under who play DT and edge.

Even if you are a bigger DE, say 265-270 and not playing inside, you are giving up an insane amount of weight to the T every single snap. Playing inside is even rougher, as you are likely to be hit by multiple OL.

DL has gotten more athletic as well, but premium big athletes seldom go to DT over OT these days. OT is a vacuum at all levels, sucking up the best and biggest players teams can find. The gap, though, has gone from a size vs. athleticism battle on the edge to DL having to punch up in weight. The evolution of sports training has guys focused much more on explosive quickness and 10-yard splits rather than basic cardio-style run-jump stuff. And those fast-twitch muscles need more rest, and so does the whole athlete who is fighting an uphill battle.

A tired DE, might be at 50%. But a rusher under 90% is likely to get his butt whupped unless he is elite.

Another harsh reality of life in the CFL is that we don't get the polished players we used to. We seldom see pass rushers come up with more than a raw skill set and maybe 1 decent move anymore. The easiest way to succeed on the DL and create disruption is to cycle through guys quickly and keep them running as hard as they can, subbing them to keep them fresh.

The longer your recovery system is in stay-fresh mode and not in heavy recovery mode, the better as well. If you are tired in the first quarter, you will not recover to 100%. You will peak lower, and each time you tire, the cycle will repeat.

The OL also has the tremendous advantage of knowing what they will be doing before the snap and being able to dictate the play. Having to react and try to stop what you don't know demands a great deal of athleticism to overcome. As well as other factors, it is a great drain on athleticism. Speed is a butt saver as much as anything on D.

Actively subbing high-wear positions is spreading like wildfire across football. It isn't just DL; it's RBs and more sharing the load. OL, WR, and DB are really the outliers in this area. WR and DB are paired in being less physically demanding and being tuned more for marathon-type activity. Ol, is so thin across all levels of football that the drop-off after the 5th guy is far too steep.

Thanks gfor the explanation. Although I will say I see a lot of big bodies who whiff their blocks on the OL because they can't match the speed of the guy their blocking. Usually thru the A/B gap or outside. The Center-Guard have a hard time with the speed of the pass rushers inside as does the Tackle on the DE.

21 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

We'll have to put who some people think Tui Eli is in the Ring of Honour.

This is less about Eli is amazing and more about I don't see what Elsbury is doing Eli couldn't. Why dress 3 american OL to have a subpar OL? Make it Canadian and use the American spot on something better

23 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

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?

My favourite tag for a defensive line was Jack Matheson's name for one Bomber line-"Four On The Floor". It was very appropriate and I loved it..

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

This is less about Eli is amazing and more about I don't see what Elsbury is doing Eli couldn't. Why dress 3 american OL to have a subpar OL? Make it Canadian and use the American spot on something better

that would make sense and be the smart move...and make us better....but.............

46 minutes ago, Tracker said:

My favourite tag for a defensive line was Jack Matheson's name for one Bomber line-"Four On The Floor". It was very appropriate and I loved it..

Those names made them famous. They sold tickets. As a fan you hated Alberta Crude & especially Dr Death, Dave Fennell. Now, other than Jefferson, Ceresna & Reese, the rest are faceless & nameless. Guys switch in & out. No one knows who they are. Same with other teams. Faceless for the most poart.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by SpeedFlex27