June 9, 2015: Winnipeg Blue Bombers vs. Toronto Argonauts

[Wobbler]

IF the 7 NIs only need apply thinking is in place...

Milanovich has said twice that we're going to start eight or possibly nine Nationals.

[OV Argo]

Every time I've been at practice, the O-line projection I have made is what is together.

Then why so many import OTs in TC ? - if Van Zeyl or Sewell are deemed fit at one OT spot ?

Milanovich has said twice that we're going to start eight or possibly nine Nationals.

We shall see - good ole boy speak loves to say they will be "starting" more than 7 NIs as it supposedly gives this roster "flexibility". Proof is in the pudding. IF AV is correct with 4 starting NI O-linemen, then even just Durie as the lone starting NI receiver = 5 on offence; then there could be Foley, Gabriel, Greenwood & Laing/Waud = 4 on D and that would be 9 potential starting NIs ... I'll believe it when I see it; but a lot of those so-called starters could be guys who play in situations or rotation?

[KCargosfan]

We shall see - good ole boy speak loves to say they will be "starting" more than 7 NIs as it supposedly gives this roster "flexibility". Proof is in the pudding. IF AV is correct with 4 starting NI O-linemen, then even just Durie as the lone starting NI receiver = 5 on offence; then there could be Foley, Gabriel, Greenwood & Laing/Waud = 4 on D and that would be 9 potential starting NIs ... I'll believe it when I see it; but a lot of those so-called starters could be guys who play in situations or rotation?

If it happens, come on here and give Milanovich some love for doubting him.

[paulwoods13]

It has happened in recent years with this team and I think it will happen again. At least eight NATs and quite possibly nine.

[OV Argo]

If it happens, come on here and give Milanovich some love for doubting him.

OK - I will; and Coombs/Campbell starting at tailback, plus one of Adjei or Norzill at a receiver spot, plus Matt Black starting at corner could equal 12 starting NIs

[Ron]

Then why so many import OTs in TC ? - if Van Zeyl or Sewell are deemed fit at one OT spot ?

Why not have so many imports? I have no issues with any Nationals beating out and import for a job in fair competition. You need to have more faith in Canadians.

[Mookie Fan]

Zero shot for either Coombs or Campbell at tailback = not surprising = an imports only need apply position perhaps? - but Coombs might still get the odd look there ?

I think the thinking of the coaching staff is that Coombs and Campbell are both young and will almost certainly make the team. They'll have a chance to get reps and experience playing in practice and in games. Campbell more so in practice in the beginning. There is very limited time to get a look at the international RBs in the preseason, and I think they had to see what they had in Josey and Lyle McCoombs. To be fair, they didn't get much of a chance to do much, but they did at least a little, and had ample chances to prove they could protect the quarterback.

Curtis Steele is a player whose job may have been in jeopardy if the team possessed someone better (aside from Josey), but Steele will likely make the team, at least initially, due to his experience and special teams acumen. Had Slaton been here, I bet Steele would have had trouble making this team as a starter. Whoever doesn't make it may have the chance to stick around on the practice roster if they want to.

[Rich]

Curtis Steele is a player whose job may have been in jeopardy if the team possessed someone better (aside from Josey), but Steele will likely make the team, at least initially, due to his experience and special teams acumen. Had Slaton been here, I bet Steele would have had trouble making this team as a starter. Whoever doesn't make it may have the chance to stick around on the practice roster if they want to.

By the second half of the season last year, if not earlier, both Slaton and Steele were on the active gameday roster, which makes perfect sense. Rotate your feature backs situationally and keep them fresher and stronger. Both Josey and Steele easily make the team.

OK - I will; and Coombs/Campbell starting at tailback, plus one of Adjei or Norzill at a receiver spot, plus Matt Black starting at corner could equal 12 starting NIs

Well why not Adjei at the wide side WR? Why waste an INT roster spot when that position rarely sees the ball anyway? I thought Adjei made a couple of nice plays at Varsity -- he has definitely stepped up his game.

Remember an extra NAT starter means an extra INT backup at DL or DB or OL or....

[doubleblue]

IMO Milanovich will start two imports on the offensive line. Campbell, Holmes, Keeping, King and Van Zeyl with Smith and Sewell as back ups. If required Smith could replace King to keep the ratio in place and may well play some in a rotation situation. But I see two Imports OL's penciled in the game day 44 even if they both don't start all the time. Ricky Ray's protection comes first, he doesn't need four Import WR's running around down field to be successful he just needs time to throw.
So for the ratio sake we have three O-Linemen, SB Durie/Coombes, FB or WR Robinson/Dupuis/Adjei on Offense. (5 positions)

Defense we have the DL Foley/Laing rotation (one ratio position) Waud as back up. Greenwood/Miles at the LB positions (one ratio position) and Gabriel at safety (one position) backed by Black, who could play the corner if needed.

So realistically they could start maybe 12 Canadians, and 12 or 13 will probably play in some kind of rotation which shows the depth they now have. However officially for the list the Coach has to give the Head Referee before the start of the game I would think it will be 8 starting Canadians. I think its pretty straight forward.

[Jon Gonzo]

IMO Milanovich will start two imports on the offensive line. Campbell, Holmes, Keeping, King and Van Zeyl with Smith and Sewell as back ups. If required Smith could replace King to keep the ratio in place and may well play some in a rotation situation. But I see two Imports OL's penciled in the game day 44 even if they both don't start all the time. Ricky Ray's protection comes first, he doesn't need four Import WR's running around down field to be successful he just needs time to throw.
So for the ratio sake we have three O-Linemen, SB Durie/Coombes, FB or WR Robinson/Dupuis/Adjei on Offense. (5 positions)

Defense we have the DL Foley/Laing rotation (one ratio position) Waud as back up. Greenwood/Miles at the LB positions (one ratio position) and Gabriel at safety (one position) backed by Black, who could play the corner if needed.

So realistically they could start maybe 12 Canadians, and 12 or 13 will probably play in some kind of rotation which shows the depth they now have. However officially for the list the Coach has to give the Head Referee before the start of the game I would think it will be 8 starting Canadians. I think its pretty straight forward.

Sure, and I agree about protection being paramount. Just that over the past two seasons, the line has performed just as well (or even better) with Wayne Jr. in there. I am not at camp, so I don't have the benefit of the eye test, but I will say this; Jarriel needs to get healthy as he's a ratio pivot, and conversely Smith is getting older, so his game could drop off. So far, from what I am reading, hearing and seeing; he has had a good camp. Who else has? 3 import receivers.

King may start the season on the injury list? Don't know how hurt he is. Then that begs the question.....does another American OL keep this discussion alive?

Just keep in mind that the American has to be that much better than the Canadian to sway this. As goes the CFL. And Jarriel hasn't been better than Smith, cos he isn't playing.

Enjoying the discussion. You bet the coaches are having the exact same conversations late into the night. That is why I come here to look, lurk and discuss.

[paulwoods13]

I thought some of the INT o-linenen looked pretty good the other night altho without replay it's hard to really judge. I am not high on Smith so if he starts I hope he proves me wrong. I definitely would like four NAT starters on D: two on the line plus Greenwood and Gabriel. It would help if we had one other NAT capable of filling in for Laing/Foley -- Waud will be fine but a second rotation NAT would make this plan work for sure. Then we could have three on the o-line plus Durie and still incorporate Coombs, FBs and our other NAT receivers into different packages while also starting the best four INT receivers.

[Jon Gonzo]

I thought some of the INT o-linenen looked pretty good the other night altho without replay it's hard to really judge. I am not high on Smith so if he starts I hope he proves me wrong. I definitely would like four NAT starters on D: two on the line plus Greenwood and Gabriel. It would help if we had one other NAT capable of filling in for Laing/Foley -- Waud will be fine but a second rotation NAT would make this plan work for sure. Then we could have three on the o-line plus Durie and still incorporate Coombs, FBs and our other NAT receivers into different packages while also starting the best four INT receivers.

From what I caught of Embernate at RT; he held his own and looked confident. But, the feed was up and down for me online.

[paulwoods13]

From what I caught of Embernate at RT; he held his own and looked confident. But, the feed was up and down for me online.

Yes, he caught my eye as well.

[doubleblue]

From what I caught of Embernate at RT; he held his own and looked confident. But, the feed was up and down for me online.

Embernate has been mentioned in some write up as having a solid camp. Van Roten got mentioned by Milanovich as being able to play all three positions and playing well. They had him at Center for part of the Fan Day Scrimmage. The new guy Dima also got mentioned by Milo as playing well with just one day of practice.
I thought the O-Line had a tougher time against their own D-Line last Saturday than against Winnipegs. But probably not all of the Bombers #1 guys were dressed either.

The biggest problem is their passport. Not having McEwen available this year hurt's the Canadian depth for sure. Dhillon and Cercelli are average at best right now.
With all the other Canadian talent available to Milanovich I wouldn't be opposed to playing three imports on the offensive line if needed to protect Ricky. Hamilton had to last year and they did alright.

[OV Argo]

IMO Milanovich will start two imports on the offensive line. Campbell, Holmes, Keeping, King and Van Zeyl with Smith and Sewell as back ups. If required Smith could replace King to keep the ratio in place and may well play some in a rotation situation. But I see two Imports OL's penciled in the game day 44 even if they both don't start all the time. Ricky Ray's protection comes first, he doesn't need four Import WR's running around down field to be successful he just needs time to throw.
So for the ratio sake we have three O-Linemen, SB Durie/Coombes, FB or WR Robinson/Dupuis/Adjei on Offense. (5 positions)

Defense we have the DL Foley/Laing rotation (one ratio position) Waud as back up. Greenwood/Miles at the LB positions (one ratio position) and Gabriel at safety (one position) backed by Black, who could play the corner if needed.

So realistically they could start maybe 12 Canadians, and 12 or 13 will probably play in some kind of rotation which shows the depth they now have. However officially for the list the Coach has to give the Head Referee before the start of the game I would think it will be 8 starting Canadians. I think its pretty straight forward.

There is next to no way that it is a simple rotation of Foley & Laing to take-up one D-line NI spot - or are you saying everytime they want Laing to play DT, that Foley will have to come out ? More like Foley plays almost everydown (as one of the premiere DEs in the league should), and Laing - as probably the best Argo DT, plays a lot of downs too, but maybe Waud subs for him some.

As far as having to hand the refs some sort of pre-game ratio deployment list ??? - - they have to say they are playing x NIs on O and y amount of NIs on D ??? - have heard talk of this before but never seen it explained in any official CFL way - silly nonsense if so, IMO.

[OV Argo]

Why not have so many imports? I have no issues with any Nationals beating out and import for a job in fair competition. You need to have more faith in Canadians.

How many imports are getting to compete at interior O-line positions for the Argos Ron? - would it be the same as the number of NI QBs getting to compete to play QB for the Argos ? You figure Campbell or Coombs are getting reps and a real opportunity to compete for playing time at tailback with the raw rookie import RBs in camp ?

[AngeloV]

As far as having to hand the refs some sort of pre-game ratio deployment list ??? - - they have to say they are playing x NIs on O and y amount of NIs on D ??? - have heard talk of this before but never seen it explained in any official CFL way - silly nonsense if so, IMO.

I always thought they had to declare only their DI's, and when one came into the game, another import had to come out (unless a team was starting more than the minimum NI's).

I stil think the rule should be changed where not only does a team need to have a minimum of 7 NI's in the starting line-up, but of that 7, there must be at least 3 on either side of the ball, with the 7th (and 8th, 9th etc.) being available on either side. That would stop teams from loading up with imports on D, and IMO, would have been a better solution to the defensive struggles of last year, rather than sure to be iffy PI calls we are going to see.

[paulwoods13]

I stil think the rule should be changed where not only does a team need to have a minimum of 7 NI's in the starting line-up, but of that 7, there must be at least 3 on either side of the ball, with the 7th (and 8th, 9th etc.) being available on either side. That would stop teams from loading up with imports on D, and IMO, would have been a better solution to the defensive struggles of last year, rather than sure to be iffy PI calls we are going to see.

I'd support that rule change for sure.

[ArgoRavi]

I always thought they had to declare only their DI's, and when one came into the game, another import had to come out (unless a team was starting more than the minimum NI's).

I stil think the rule should be changed where not only does a team need to have a minimum of 7 NI's in the starting line-up, but of that 7, there must be at least 3 on either side of the ball, with the 7th (and 8th, 9th etc.) being available on either side. That would stop teams from loading up with imports on D, and IMO, would have been a better solution to the defensive struggles of last year, rather than sure to be iffy PI calls we are going to see.

You are correct about simply declaring your DIs, AV. By default, there will be seven Canadian starters after declaring your three (?) designated imports. I like your other rule proposal but I am excited about the rule changes for this season which I think will bring the offence back and get the pace of the Canadian game closer to where it should be once defenders realize early in the season what they can and can't do.

[AngeloV]

You are correct about simply declaring your DIs, AV. By default, there will be seven Canadian starters after declaring your three (?) designated imports. I like your other rule proposal but I am excited about the rule changes for this season which I think will bring the offence back and get the pace of the Canadian game closer to where it should be once defenders realize early in the season what they can and can't do.

I hate the rule change in the secondary. Offences shouldn't get to improve only at the expense of limiting what has always been good hard defence. I think it was a knee jerk reaction to an off season of finishing drives. Personally, I don't like sitting in the crowd, watching what I think is a good play, and then before I can get excited about it, have to look and see it the officials throw a flag. Thre is going to be 30 flags a game at the beginning of the season, and I believe something like that can turn away a lot of possible fans just as much as low scoring can.