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?
Chad Kelly + Dan Adeboboye + David Ungerer + Damonte Coxie + DaVaris Daniels + Dejon Brissett = Unstoppable Force
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chad Kelly + Dan Adeboboye + David Ungerer + Damonte Coxie + DaVaris Daniels + Dejon Brissett = Unstoppable Force
Bookmarks