June 27, 2015: Edmonton vs. Toronto Argonauts

[Rich]

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)

[paulwoods13]

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.

[Rich]

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

[paulwoods13]

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.

[Rich]

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... ???