June 27, 2015: Edmonton vs. Toronto Argonauts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely2005

Yes:

http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe601...0178771d75&r=0

---

Also here:

http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe601...7161057d751279

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

As someone who works in construction, particularly demolition, I can concur, it really is a terrible place. That was my opinion before oil took a dive. The place offers absolutely nothing good, as it currently stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

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

---

Not sure I understand then. If they start four on O and four on D they can replace any one of them with an INT and still be within the ratio, I believe. If they start nine they can replace two. So in the example you gave, if there are four on O then one of the four on D can be subbed out.

I am not impressed with Edmonton's offensive line. Am I missing something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KCargosfan

I am not impressed with Edmonton's offensive line. Am I missing something?

---

Jonathan Himebauch made chicken salad out of chicken spit with that Edmonton o-line last year. It will be interesting to see how that o-line fares this season without him but their personnel isn't overly impressive at first glance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArgoRavi

Jonathan Himebauch made chicken salad out of chicken spit with that Edmonton o-line last year. It will be interesting to see how that o-line fares this season without him but their personnel isn't overly impressive at first glance.

---

The Esks have draft pick Danny Groulx in the line-up and heard he could end up starting - guy is huge and played on a perennial power-house Laval offence = he could help. Maybe they will start 3 imports on the O-line = surely a huge advantage/luxury = then look for their QB to be untouched and the run game to have huge holes all game long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OV Argo

Maybe they will start 3 imports on the O-line = surely a huge advantage/luxury = then look for their QB to be untouched and the run game to have huge holes all game long.

---

Not only that, but we'll be starting TWO nationals on the D-line! We may not get a single chance to return a punt on Saturday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wobbler

Not only that, but we'll be starting TWO nationals on the D-line! We may not get a single chance to return a punt on Saturday.

---

haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

Not sure I understand then. If they start four on O and four on D they can replace any one of them with an INT and still be within the ratio, I believe. If they start nine they can replace two. So in the example you gave, if there are four on O then one of the four on D can be subbed out.

---

Thanks Paul you've answered my question. If they go 4 NAT on O then they're pretty much committed to going 4 NAT on D, and was just wondering about the practicalities of that, esp. since they haven't had 4 NAT starters on D since... ???

It's interesting to think of the "old" days when teams had to stat 10 NATs (or NIs as they were known then). The 1983 GC champion Argos played eight on O: five on the line, Pearson, Townsend and a rotating group of fullbacks. Only two on D were LB Don Moen and S Ken McEachern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

It's interesting to think of the "old" days when teams had to stat 10 NATs (or NIs as they were known then). The 1983 GC champion Argos played eight on O: five on the line, Pearson, Townsend and a rotating group of fullbacks. Only two on D were LB Don Moen and S Ken McEachern.

---

Lemme take a crack at that. Tom Trifaux, Tony Antunovic, Ian Beckstead, Dan Ferrone, Kelvin Pruenster?

Not quite. Trifaux started in the Grey Cup at LT but was replaced by Pruenster when he got injured. Ferrone was at LG, Mike Hameluck at RG and John Malinosky at RT. Beckstead was with the team but was not a regular starter until the following season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

It's interesting to think of the "old" days when teams had to stat 10 NATs (or NIs as they were known then). The 1983 GC champion Argos played eight on O: five on the line, Pearson, Townsend and a rotating group of fullbacks. Only two on D were LB Don Moen and S Ken McEachern.

---

I just watched the '83 Eastern Final agains this past weekend. Loved that team. Thanks again Paul!!

On a side note...Pat Marsden really sucked as a PBP guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

Beckstead was with the team but was not a regular starter until the following season.

---

And it took him until '87 ( I think he was out of football or injured in '86) to become a high quality starter. Before that he took way too many holding penalties.

Not sure he'd get that much extra time to develop in today's football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argolio

And it took him until '87 ( I think he was out of football or injured in '86) to become a high quality starter. Before that he took way too many holding penalties.

Not sure he'd get that much extra time to develop in today's football.

---

He also played for a year or two at least in Ottawa before arriving in Toronto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

It's interesting to think of the "old" days when teams had to stat 10 NATs (or NIs as they were known then). The 1983 GC champion Argos played eight on O: five on the line, Pearson, Townsend and a rotating group of fullbacks. Only two on D were LB Don Moen and S Ken McEachern.

---

The Argos could easily "start" 10 or more NIs this season: 4 O-linemen (from amongst Keeping, Holmes, Van Zeyl, Smith, Sewell), 2 receivers - Durie & Adjei (or Stala); or Coombs at tailback = would be 6 or 7 on offence; then Foley, Laing/Waud, Greenwood, Gabriel + even Matt Black somewhere in the D-backfield.

BW, not CK
http://www.cfl.ca/article/argos-lean...-fort-mcmurray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OV Argo

The Argos could easily "start" 10 or more NIs this season: 4 O-linemen (from amongst Keeping, Holmes, Van Zeyl, Smith, Sewell), 2 receivers - Durie & Adjei (or Stala); or Coombs at tailback = would be 6 or 7 on offence; then Foley, Laing/Waud, Greenwood, Gabriel + even Matt Black somewhere in the D-backfield.

---

Agreed, OV. I would love to see the league go back to a roster setup where 10 Canadians started but, unfortunately, I think that ship has sailed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArgoRavi

Agreed, OV. I would love to see the league go back to a roster setup where 10 Canadians started but, unfortunately, I think that ship has sailed.

---

Ravi - that ship has sailed and long sunk. Could you picture any of the current GOBs or the new American Commish lobbying for more Canadian content in this "radical" league ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OV Argo

Ravi - that ship has sailed and long sunk. Could you picture any of the current GOBs or the new American Commish lobbying for more Canadian content in this "radical" league ?

---

The CFLPA never should have given up those three starting spots back in 1996. Once they gave those spots up, they were lost for good. I can't recall the CFLPA bigwig at that time - Stu Laird maybe - that has admitted recently what a huge mistake that they made.