June 27, 2015: Edmonton vs. Toronto Argonauts

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-23-2015, 03:31 PM
AngeloV

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

There are now 20 NATs on the roster, still one short of the minimum. I would guess that Herbert will be added for this game.

One INT has to come off the 46 and three off the 44. Probably King or Van Roten, plus Rolle and one d-lineman (Wright or Cummings, I would guess).

I wouldn't be too surprised to see a INT receiver come off the 46 rather than Rolle, especially with Miles on IR.
06-23-2015, 03:35 PM
Neely2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsiemier

I rarely post but i do enjoy reading these blogs. I am a seasen ticket holder for years with two friends. We plan to get together to watch the opener but want to go to a spot with other fans. Location doesn't matter as we come from various areas of the GTA. Does Shoeless joes on King st still have viewing parties

Yes:

http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe601...0178771d75&r=0
06-23-2015, 03:39 PM
paulwoods13

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngeloV

I wouldn't be too surprised to see a INT receiver come off the 46 rather than Rolle, especially with Miles on IR.

Yeah, that might make more sense, now that you mention it. We love to use LBs on special teams, and if we do in fact start two NAT receivers we don't need five INT receivers dressed.
06-23-2015, 04:53 PM
Jon Gonzo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wobbler

Are we sure that King can't go? I haven't seen anything definite.

Quote from Jim Barker with Hogie on TSN Monday Night
06-23-2015, 04:56 PM
Jon Gonzo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

If they go 2 INT on the OL then i'm convinced they will start 2 NAT receivers.

I thought Natey Adjei had a great preseason, was getting open and made some tough catches. They'll rotate Coombs through there, or else use the NAT slot for Dupuis and coach even mentioned Gillanders at HBack as the situation dictates, and drop another INT into the wide side slot when that happens.

It is interesting that they put Stala on the active roster and not the practice roster, which I think tips their hand about the 2nd NAT REC whether he is ready to play or not.

It has been stated by the GM that they 'are starting 3 rookie American's at receiver."
06-23-2015, 05:12 PM
OV Argo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Gonzo

It has been stated by the GM that they 'are starting 3 rookie American's at receiver."

I predicted that; though we may see Coombs or Adjei in for some plays on O; I was also right on my guess of 2 imports pencilled-in as the OTs. When the team can play 4 regular starting NIs on D (all pretty good ones, though Greenwood is unproven), then that frees up spots to play more imports on offence, even if it is 3 rookie receivers (and if Josey starts at tailback it will be 4, and if King is not playing, but 2 new import OTs are, that would make 6 (or one half the offence) rookie / no Canadian football experience imports starting on offence. No surprise to me at all though.
06-23-2015, 05:27 PM
Wobbler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Gonzo

Quote from Jim Barker with Hogie on TSN Monday Night

Thanks. In that case your OL prediction must be correct. As for the DBs and receivers... we'll see! I'm not sure that playing The Smiths at halfback is a good idea; they can be kinda depressing.
06-23-2015, 07:29 PM
AngeloV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wobbler

Thanks. In that case your OL prediction must be correct. As for the DBs and receivers... we'll see! I'm not sure that playing The Smiths at halfback is a good idea; they can be kinda depressing.

Listening to Barker last night, sounds like Devin Smith and Underwood are starting at half.
06-23-2015, 08:52 PM
paulwoods13

Quote:

Originally Posted by OV Argo

I predicted that; though we may see Coombs or Adjei in for some plays on O; I was also right on my guess of 2 imports pencilled-in as the OTs. When the team can play 4 regular starting NIs on D (all pretty good ones, though Greenwood is unproven), then that frees up spots to play more imports on offence, even if it is 3 rookie receivers (and if Josey starts at tailback it will be 4, and if King is not playing, but 2 new import OTs are, that would make 6 (or one half the offence) rookie / no Canadian football experience imports starting on offence. No surprise to me at all though.

I am pretty sure we will see VZ at RT and VR at RG. That's how they lined up to start against Montreal. King also played guard (and VZ played tackle) most of last season.
06-23-2015, 08:59 PM
Argonut

Quote:

Originally Posted by argolio

Full house of 20,000+, almost entirely Eskimo fans for our "home" game.

Hi everyone.
Its been a while since I have posted here.

My daughter and I will be making the trek out to Fort McMurray to take in the game. Fort McMurray is about a 4.5 hour drive from Edmonton.
My guess is that there will be a considerable more Toronto fans than we think. A lot of the labour force that works there is from the East. From what I have been told, there is nothing to do there outside of work, so this should be a breath of fresh air for all people in Fort Mac.
06-23-2015, 10:34 PM
OV Argo

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

I am pretty sure we will see VZ at RT and VR at RG. That's how they lined up to start against Montreal. King also played guard (and VZ played tackle) most of last season.

Regardless, wether at OT or OG, that could still leave 6 raw rookie / never played Canadian football before imports starting on offence (if it is 3 rookie receivers and Josey starting at tailback too) = you don\t see that very often. Some new rookie imports playing on the D too? - in the backfield and at DT ? Any rookie NIs starting ?
06-23-2015, 11:47 PM
argolio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argonut

Hi everyone.
Its been a while since I have posted here.

My daughter and I will be making the trek out to Fort McMurray to take in the game. Fort McMurray is about a 4.5 hour drive from Edmonton.
My guess is that there will be a considerable more Toronto fans than we think. A lot of the labour force that works there is from the East. From what I have been told, there is nothing to do there outside of work, so this should be a breath of fresh air for all people in Fort Mac.

Good to see you here again, Argonut.

Cheer on our boys for us!
06-24-2015, 02:36 AM
jerrym

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

I'm on record (many times) as judging Smith a backup at best, but regardless of that I thought Van Roten played well in the game at Varsity.

I agree. Smith is well past his best before date.
06-24-2015, 07:56 AM
Argo57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argonut

Hi everyone.
Its been a while since I have posted here.

My daughter and I will be making the trek out to Fort McMurray to take in the game. Fort McMurray is about a 4.5 hour drive from Edmonton.
My guess is that there will be a considerable more Toronto fans than we think. A lot of the labour force that works there is from the East. From what I have been told, there is nothing to do there outside of work, so this should be a breath of fresh air for all people in Fort Mac.

Hope you and your daughter have a great time cheering our team onto victory!!
06-24-2015, 12:35 PM
1argoholic

A breath of fresh air is what anyone heading to Fort Mac will want after their trip. I wouldn't hit that hell hole if my life depended on it. I feel sorry for all of the people who flocked there chasing the all mighty $. More to life then money.

Have fun but get in and out without having to stay long. haha.
06-24-2015, 01:17 PM
Rich

Quote:

Originally Posted by OV Argo

When the team can play 4 regular starting NIs on D (all pretty good ones, though Greenwood is unproven), then that frees up spots to play more imports on offence

But is there enough NAT depth to start 4 NATs on defence? Waud backs up Laing, but is Waud ready to play at this level? Who backs up Foley? Who backs up Gabriel?
06-24-2015, 01:32 PM
OV Argo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

But is there enough NAT depth to start 4 NATs on defence? Waud backs up Laing, but is Waud ready to play at this level? Who backs up Foley? Who backs up Gabriel?

The back-ups for Foley or Gabriel do not have to be NIs, though they could be; sounds like the team will be carrying another new import DE, so if Foley got hurt, the new import plays DE - simple as that; as far as back-ups to Gabriel - I think you know of Matt Black who is a capable and veteran DB who has played safety before; and there will be some extra import DBs by the sound of it - even if they are a DI, they could play saftey -sub for Jones at MLB and put Yurichuck or Tonye-Tonye there. As far as Waud being "ready" to play in the CFL - my guess is he's as easily ready as some of the dozen or so new imports who have never played Canadian football before but who are about to get handed playing time on this year's Argos. There are lots of options - but the shop-worn CFL cliche about you just have to have a NI to back-up a starting NI and these are so rare or unfit, while there are superstar imports abound/around to play any position, is often applied to the situation. The back-ups to any position can be a concern - so why the knee-jerk, spin out of proportion "ratio problem" bs about NIs when a lot of CFL fans talk rosters and depth ???
06-24-2015, 02:42 PM
Rich

Quote:

Originally Posted by OV Argo

The back-ups for Foley or Gabriel do not have to be NIs, though they could be; sounds like the team will be carrying another new import DE, so if Foley got hurt, the new import plays DE - simple as that; as far as back-ups to Gabriel - I think you know of Matt Black who is a capable and veteran DB who has played safety before; and there will be some extra import DBs by the sound of it - even if they are a DI, they could play saftey -sub for Jones at MLB and put Yurichuck or Tonye-Tonye there. As far as Waud being "ready" to play in the CFL - my guess is he's as easily ready as some of the dozen or so new imports who have never played Canadian football before but who are about to get handed playing time on this year's Argos. There are lots of options - but the shop-worn CFL cliche about you just have to have a NI to back-up a starting NI and these are so rare or unfit, while there are superstar imports abound/around to play any position, is often applied to the situation. The back-ups to any position can be a concern - so why the knee-jerk, spin out of proportion "ratio problem" bs about NIs when a lot of CFL fans talk rosters and depth ???

I thought that when you replace a NAT with an INT then you have to replace an INT for an NAT somewhere else in order to retain the ratio. Is that wrong? (also i thought matt black was hurt but was mistaken about that too)
06-24-2015, 03:50 PM
paulwoods13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

I thought that when you replace a NAT with an INT then you have to replace an INT for an NAT somewhere else in order to retain the ratio. Is that wrong? (also i thought matt black was hurt but was mistaken about that too)

No, you must start a minimum of seven NATs and must have four designated INTs. A designated INT can enter the game to replace a starting NAT, provided that there are still seven NATs on offence and defence combined. That's why it is advantageous to start eight or nine (or even 10) NATs -- losing one or two allows you to swap in an INT. If you start only seven, any you take out of the lineup (by choice or because of injury) even for one play have to be replaced by another NAT. If the Argos were to start nine (easily doable this year, IMO) they could sub an INT in for Foley or Laing any time they wanted.
06-24-2015, 05:08 PM
Rich

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

If the Argos were to start nine (easily doable this year, IMO) they could sub an INT in for Foley or Laing any time they wanted.

yeah but it sounds like they may be only starting 4 on offence which is why i raised the question

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page