That's playing with fire.
I agree that Arbuckle did not have the best game, but I am not going to be as hard on him as some.... let's not forget, he only had 7 starts in Calgary filling in for Bo Levi Mitchell and that was almost two years ago. Missed a lot of training camp, and this was only his third start this season. So basically, less than one season's worth of work over two years. To be fair to him, the interception in the end zone wouldn't have happened if our receiver hadn't kneed the ball right into the defender's hands. As far as the second pick, my first impression at the time was he was trying to heave it out of bounds but didn't throw it far enough. If he was actually trying to complete a pass, then that is different. Very bad decision, but a coachable moment. He definitely has the arm strength to get the ball downfield, and I have seen enough positive things to believe he will be a strong contributor to our success. And while I have said before that MBT is not who we should be leaning on for the future, it is great to have him there. Other than perhaps Jeremiah Masoli, he is the best QB who is not starting in the league right now. And if anything does happen to Arbuckle, it is great to know we have him there as a very capable replacement. I just think we have to ride this kid all the way, and let him figure it out.
Another thing.... Am I ever glad we didn't stick with Matt Nichols. Phew.
If we are having an issue with special teams, wouldn't the most logical personnel response be to replace some of the special teams/backup players rather than take a chance we don't run into injuries on the o-line? We have 45 guys dressing for a game, 42 when we subtract the two kicking specialists and the backup QB. That means 18 backups, 16 if you remove two backup o-linemen. I think that's more than enough to staff up kick coverage and return teams. We have some guys on PR (like Mezzalira) who might be useful on ST.
7 is the minimum amount of O-lineman I would dress, and would seriously consider going with 8. Argos dressed 7 d-lineman last game, but have dressed 8 at times. I think that's too many. Also dressed 6 LB's between MIC and WIL last game. I think that's too many. Obviously that's ST related, but to me, injuries on the O-line in game can be massive.
I agree seven is the minimum for o-line. Eight is a luxury if you can afford it, but I think seven is optimum. It's worth noting that both of our backups, Giffen and Churchill, spotted in on Friday, mostly on short-yardage downs. Playing seven is not a waste if the backups get on the field.
I don't have a problem with eight d-linemen if they rotate constantly.
Our depth chart on Friday showed six INT backups (in addition to Bede who was one of the four DIs). Five of them (McCoil, Harold, Mencer, Foster and Worthy) saw action on offence or defence -- Vontae Diggs played only specials, as far as I could see.
Whether or not Blake comes back early, I think there is no chance we will dress just six o-linemen. If special teams are an issue, it will be dealt with by coaching up and/or replacing special teamers, not by weakening the one position group that has little impact on special teams. And I don't see special teams as close to a crisis. Two blocked kicks is certainly cause for concern, as is one kick-return TD allowed. But our own lack of big returns seems to be primarily due to not having a game-breaking returner. And it doesn't help that we are missing a couple of guys who figured to be primary players on specials. This is much ado about not so much, IMO.
This is where we disagree. The Argos show a lot of 3 man fronts. To me, they should not be dressing more than 6 D-lineman. You also don't want to rotate too much on the D-line. Maybe the back-ups play 2 or 3 series in a game. A D-lineman needs to be out there to get into the game. I think staying fresh is over exaggerated. An offence that can stay on the field is all you need to keep these guys fresh.