Brandon Bridge to sign with the Argos

[mchesher03]

I think anyone who saw the 2017 East Final has at least some level of affinity for Bridge, although they did NOT that day!

That said, he is an intriguing prospect and I will happily say I'd love him to get to the level of starting QB for the team - what a story that would be.

However, yes he appears to have regressed a bit last season and may have some accuracy issues - not ideal. Let's see how it plays out when he gets a chance to prove himself (either way).

Gotta think that having the opportunity to throw to Walker, SJ and Armanti as your top 3 WR should make you look like a pretty good QB! let's hope so.

[OV Argo]

When was the last time someone from the GTA started at QB for the Argos? It's been at least 75 years. If I'm not mistaken Joe "King" Krol was the last Canadian to start at QB for the Argos -- in the late 40s -- but he was from Hamilton.

In 1969, veteran Canadian QB Frank Cosentino played for the Argos in his last CFL season; not sure if he had any starts, but he was 2nd behind Tom Wilkinson that season in pass attempts for the Argos (over 100 passes thrown); i tend to forget about that rare example of a Canadian QB with the Argos, and i remember Cosentino more as an Esk or Ticat. Cosentino was also from Hamilton and played his college ball at Western.

[argotom]

I think anyone who saw the 2017 East Final has at least some level of affinity for Bridge, although they did NOT that day!

That said, he is an intriguing prospect and I will happily say I'd love him to get to the level of starting QB for the team - what a story that would be.

However, yes he appears to have regressed a bit last season and may have some accuracy issues - not ideal. Let's see how it plays out when he gets a chance to prove himself (either way).

Gotta think that having the opportunity to throw to Walker, SJ and Armanti as your top 3 WR should make you look like a pretty good QB! let's hope so.

The thing I like about BB is his desire to attack downfield. Similarly he has made throws he shouldn't have and ate the ball instead but this will come with maturity.
I get it that's on the OC calling the plays, hopefully the vertical system whomever is the QB for us will be featured as it brings excitement to the fans.
It was sadly missing under the Trestman dink and dunk check down years.

[Will]

I think anyone who saw the 2017 East Final has at least some level of affinity for Bridge, although they did NOT that day!

That said, he is an intriguing prospect and I will happily say I'd love him to get to the level of starting QB for the team - what a story that would be.

However, yes he appears to have regressed a bit last season and may have some accuracy issues - not ideal. Let's see how it plays out when he gets a chance to prove himself (either way).

Gotta think that having the opportunity to throw to Walker, SJ and Armanti as your top 3 WR should make you look like a pretty good QB! let's hope so.

It's funny that you should mention that. Two of Franklin's best performances (limited sample size) prior to coming was against the Argos. It is a similar case with Brandon Bridge as he replaced Glenn in a game earlier in '17 where the Argos were up by a touchdown or two and led them back.

[Rich]

I don't think there was any "almost" about it, actually, unless we consider Sears and Tyms starters. Tyms did start Game 1 of the regular season so I guess he was technically a starter who played in the preseason. Sears got hurt in second PS game so who knows if he was earmarked to start, but I doubt it. Chamblin really needs a different approach than Trestman took last season -- all starters need at least a bit of PS playing time.

I'm a little less critical of this than I was before when I discovered Sean McVey did exactly the same thing with the LA Rams last year, and it didn't seem to hurt their season at all. Maybe it's the way of the future.

[Rich]

"I've never enjoyed running the ball and I've become more of a pocket passer over the years," he said. "I'm happy to (run) when I can but I definitely would rather have someone else do it, not because I'm lazy but I'd rather them have that kind of success.

It sounds a little like Franklin was trying to appease his pocket-passer coach with these remarks last year. I still believe he is "happy to run when he can".

[john]

It sounds a little like Franklin was trying to appease his pocket-passer coach with these remarks last year. I still believe he is "happy to run when he can".

argos are well served now w/ 2 running qb's

[paulwoods13]

I'm a little less critical of this than I was before when I discovered Sean McVey did exactly the same thing with the LA Rams last year, and it didn't seem to hurt their season at all. Maybe it's the way of the future.

NFL camps are longer, so there's more time to get vets prepared. Most NFL teams sit starters for much of the preseason, but not all of it.

[Will]

I'm a little less critical of this than I was before when I discovered Sean McVey did exactly the same thing with the LA Rams last year, and it didn't seem to hurt their season at all. Maybe it's the way of the future.

Not playing veterans in the pre-season is just one of many potential factors that may have influenced the team coming out flat and never getting on track. However, that factor is probably the one that was most readily apparent to most. I attend TC on weekends (when I can), but unless you're there every day, it may be difficult to compile a list of other factors.

[Ron]

Not unless the rules changes. Nationality is irrelevant for QBs under the current rules -- teams can dress 21 NATs, 20 INTs and 3 QBs of any nationality. So no extra DI if a QB is a NAT.

For the record, I'll be very surprised if the rule on this is changed to (in theory) make it beneficial for teams to dress NAT QBs. There simply aren't enough NAT QBs to go around at this point, and teams without one would not support giving an advantage to teams that have one. (And also for the record, I am on record as believing that teams should be signing and developing NAT QBs, regardless of roster rules.)

They should change the rules and your reasoning for not changing is the age-old cop out. It's irrelevant how many NAT QB's are around. if you have one he has to count as a NAT on the roster. Simply make the roster 21 NAT and 23 IMP and QB's are free to have the same benefit to the roster as any other NAT.

Teams are not forced to roster a NAT QB that isn't qualified but if they somehow develop one they get the benefit. Just as teams benefit now by having a NAT RB like Andrew Harris. He fills a NAT spot that is mostly filled by IMP elsewhere and Winnipeg benefits over other teams.

[paulwoods13]

They should change the rules and your reasoning for not changing is the age-old cop out. It's irrelevant how many NAT QB's are around. if you have one he has to count as a NAT on the roster. Simply make the roster 21 NAT and 23 IMP and QB's are free to have the same benefit to the roster as any other NAT.

Teams are not forced to roster a NAT QB that isn't qualified but if they somehow develop one they get the benefit. Just as teams benefit now by having a NAT RB like Andrew Harris. He fills a NAT spot that is mostly filled by IMP elsewhere and Winnipeg benefits over other teams.

Call it a cop-out, but I believe teams will continue to act out of self-interest. Teams will believe, rightly or wrongly, that a team able to use one of its NAT spots at QB (and therefore having 21 non-QB INTs) would have an advantage over a team that could dress only 20 non-QB INTs. Therefore I don't expect the rules to be changed in the near future. The Ticats would not want to the Argos (for instance) to have an extra INT dressed for special teams, substitutions etc.

[Shatto]

Agree with Paul, it is unlikely the rules for NAT QB's will change but right now it is almost a decentive to play a NAT QB and until the rules change to make it an incentive, NAT QB's will be at a disadvantage. If all teams knew the change was coming in two years there would be no reason why all 9 teams couldn't have a NAT QB.

[OV Argo]

Again - we shall see if any of Michael O'Connor, Chris Merchant or Adam Sinagra are picked this coming CFL draft (or signed as FAs after) - at a time of real QB need in the league.

Not sure what roster/ratio changes are going to do on this file?

REAL change would be CFL personnel decision makers actually believing in Canadian QB talent to give them a REAL shot to compete in TCs.

I believe Bridge might make the Argos as 3rd stringer maybe; Picton will be cut; and the Hugo Richard signing with the Als was more just a Quebec guy PR move or extra arm for TC; why that dullard Desjardins in Ottawa didn't sign Richard first for his QB desperate situation is laughable but telling. I'll believe it when i see/hear it of any of the above mentioned draftable 3 getting a real CFL TC shot.

Same old CFL on this file IMO.

Nathan Rourke (Ohio) and Tre Ford (Waterloo) are 2 outstanding young Canadian QBs in college ball now - who CFL teams could look at down the road shortly; again - we shall see; myopics have trouble there.

[Rich]

Call it a cop-out, but I believe teams will continue to act out of self-interest. Teams will believe, rightly or wrongly, that a team able to use one of its NAT spots at QB (and therefore having 21 non-QB INTs) would have an advantage over a team that could dress only 20 non-QB INTs.

But Ron is right, how is that different from starting NAT RBs? There certainly aren't enough of them to go around. Why should Winnipeg have the advantage of a starting NAT RB just because they were smart enough to sign a good one? It's not fair to all the other teams who weren't smart enough or didn't have enough cap space to sign one too. Well boo hoo. It's such a defeatist, backward-looking attitude, so sadly typical of GOB thinking.

They better change this stupid rule soon because over the next few years I think there are going to be more and more Canadian QBs coming out of Div I FBS schools now that Bridge has broken the ice. These will be Canadian kids with NFL QB dreams, but also aware now that if they became stars in the CFL they could pull down $800,000 or more, which ain't too shabby as a second option.

[paulwoods13]

But Ron is right, how is that different from starting NAT RBs? There certainly aren't enough of them to go around. Why should Winnipeg have the advantage of a starting NAT RB just because they were smart enough to sign a good one? It's not fair to all the other teams who weren't smart enough or didn't have enough cap space to sign one too. Well boo hoo. It's such a defeatist, backward-looking attitude, so sadly typical of GOB thinking.

They better change this stupid rule soon because over the next few years I think there are going to be more and more Canadian QBs coming out of Div I FBS schools now that Bridge has broken the ice. These will be Canadian kids with NFL QB dreams, but also aware now that if they became stars in the CFL they could pull down $800,000 or more, which ain't too shabby as a second option.

As I said, it's different because counting Canadian QBs as NATs rather than QBs would allow teams to have an extra INT -- a 21st -- who actually gets on the field. Yes, the Bombers have a NAT RB, but they still have -- like every other team -- only 20 INTs who can get into the game (other than at QB). I haven't seen anyone come up with an answer to why teams without a NAT QB wouldn't object out of self-interest. They will believe (rightly or wrongly) that a team with 21 INTs has an advantage over a team with 20.

Again, I'm on record as suggesting teams would be very smart to start developing Canadian QBs. If I were a GM I'd be doing exactly that even under the current rules. I don't personally think it's a "disincentive" to have the rule as it is, but even if it is, you still need QBs who can play and you'd be smart to dress the best three you have, regardless of nationality.

Perhaps the answer will be, as Shatto suggests, to announce a rule change applicable in two or three years. That gives everyone an equal opportunity to see if they can find a NAT QB worth developing. I don't think there are nine of them available at the moment, although there may well be five or six.

[doubleblue]

The answer is simple IMO. Scrap the three QB rule and go with 21 Canadians and 23 Imports. Ratio of 7 stays the same. Watch Coaches start looking for a Canadian QB if they want to use another Import spot as a DI instead of a 3rd string QB holding a clip board.

[gilthethrill]

Again - we shall see if any of Michael O'Connor, Chris Merchant or Adam Sinagra are picked this coming CFL draft (or signed as FAs after) - at a time of real QB need in the league.

Not sure what roster/ratio changes are going to do on this file?

REAL change would be CFL personnel decision makers actually believing in Canadian QB talent to give them a REAL shot to compete in TCs.

I believe Bridge might make the Argos as 3rd stringer maybe; Picton will be cut; and the Hugo Richard signing with the Als was more just a Quebec guy PR move or extra arm for TC; why that dullard Desjardins in Ottawa didn't sign Richard first for his QB desperate situation is laughable but telling. I'll believe it when i see/hear it of any of the above mentioned draftable 3 getting a real CFL TC shot.

Same old CFL on this file IMO.

Nathan Rourke (Ohio) and Tre Ford (Waterloo) are 2 outstanding young Canadian QBs in college ball now - who CFL teams could look at down the road shortly; again - we shall see; myopics have trouble there.

Well OV, if the AAF is putting a drain on the qb pool like some CFL GMs have claimed (I have not seen much inspired qb play in that league), then I would have to think that finally Canadian qbs will get more looks in the CFL.

[paulwoods13]

The answer is simple IMO. Scrap the three QB rule and go with 21 Canadians and 23 Imports. Ratio of 7 stays the same. Watch Coaches start looking for a Canadian QB if they want to use another Import spot as a DI instead of a 3rd string QB holding a clip board.

Yes, that is what would happen if the rule were to be changed. But I continue to believe that teams without a viable NAT QB (which is most of them at the moment) would oppose such a change out of a belief that it would favour the few teams that do (basically Tor and maybe Mtl at this point).

[argos1873]

Obviously the reason QBs don't count towards the ratio is so that a) you can freely substitute QBs, without any ratio implications and b) so that teams can't just go with a rarely used NI 3rd string QB, to add another Import elsewhere. But I think there has to be a solution to this problem somewhere, to be able to have some incentive to actively seek and sign Canadian QBs. It won't come without downside of course, just as the current solution isn't without downside. I think the caretakers of the game need to look at the long term, and not the short-sighted "well these teams will have an advantage in the next 2 years" attitude.

[Shatto]

The above has been a very interesting discussion, as to how to encourage the development and use of NAT QB's. There were some very valid points made by all who expressed their opinions. But---while we are on the discussion of roster rules, why not allow all active players to dress for games. Sitting a couple of active players out each game, seems a little silly. Paying an active player not to play just doesn't make good sense. Anyway --again just my view --feel free to disagree.