View Poll Results: Who Gets Your Support in the CBA Negotiations?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • #TeamCFLPA

    13 61.90%
  • CFL - Still need more solid footing

    3 14.29%
  • Undecided

    0 0%
  • Don't care - just get it done!

    5 23.81%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 210

Thread: CFL CBA Situation

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,869
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by boydo View Post
    Trimming one spot won't be the death rattle that's for sure. It's the guys that say "get rid of the ratio altogether" that worry me. Then it will literally be an NFL North/NFL Farm team sort of situation which (and I know I'm in the minority here) would suck giant donkey balls... If I wanted to watch hoser ball...I'd watch NFL. I don't - so I don't.
    The ratio gives Canadian kids a chance to play a professional sport with realistic expectations. I agree with Calvin though - there should be some incentive to teams to have Canadian coaches as well. Something like maybe their salary not counting towards the cap for staff? Just throwing that out there. If they get rid of the ratio - that would also be a good idea to have Canadian salaries not count towards the SMS or at a reduced rate to keep them in the game? Otherwise we'll get flooded with guys looking to get their one year of film and bolt back down south.
    I just want the Canadian quota to be a number that the system can realistically sustain. It shouldn't be like it is where most teams have just enough quality Canadians to start but god help them if a guy goes down to injury. A great example is Colquhoun. He is a Canadian that can be a quality starter at corner. Really nice thing to have. But when he gets hurt, the Esks are juggling their entire roster for the ratio because they have no one behind him that is close. They have a few guys who for a series or 2 can survive but long term, they have to change his spot from Canadian to American. They drafted Onyeka with the hopes he can be another Canadian starting corner BUT it takes years for those guys to develop. Maybe this year he will be ready to be a back up, maybe not. It's up in the air right now.
    The caliber of Canadian player is getting better and better every year which is great. But IMO it isn't making a lot of difference for the CFL. The best Canadians are going to the states to play ball now or worse sitting out in the hopes they get picked up. Year after year we see guys drafted high who rather than play for a CFL team sit and hope they get signed in the NFL. Or they spend years going from camp to camp in the NFL trying to make it rather than play in the CFL. I don't want to see the Canadian spot eliminated, I just want it to be at a level where teams can have enough good starters and back ups when injuries happen. It would be great for teams to be able to build some depth rather than just have enough. It would be nice to hear analysts talk about teams as a whole and rate them position wise rather than have to single out nationality wise. "Well they have a really good QB but their Canadian depth isn't where it needs to be."
    Last edited by Sectionq; 03-19-2019 at 08:53 AM.
    Remember winning is not enough according to Len Rhodes, President of a professional sports team.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Campbell River BC
    Posts
    7,658
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    655

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionq View Post
    I just want the Canadian quota to be a number that the system can realistically sustain. It shouldn't be like it is where most teams have just enough quality Canadians to start but god help them if a guy goes down to injury. A great example is Colquhoun. He is a Canadian that can be a quality starter at corner. Really nice thing to have. But when he gets hurt, the Esks are juggling their entire roster for the ratio because they have no one behind him that is close. They have a few guys who for a series or 2 can survive but long term, they have to change his spot from Canadian to American. They drafted Onyeka with the hopes he can be another Canadian starting corner BUT it takes years for those guys to develop. Maybe this year he will be ready to be a back up, maybe not. It's up in the air right now.
    The caliber of Canadian player is getting better and better every year which is great. But IMO it isn't making a lot of difference for the CFL. The best Canadians are going to the states to play ball now or worse sitting out in the hopes they get picked up. Year after year we see guys drafted high who rather than play for a CFL team sit and hope they get signed in the NFL. Or they spend years going from camp to camp in the NFL trying to make it rather than play in the CFL. I don't want to see the Canadian spot eliminated, I just want it to be at a level where teams can have enough good starters and back ups when injuries happen. It would be great for teams to be able to build some depth rather than just have enough. It would be nice to hear analysts talk about teams as a whole and rate them position wise rather than have to single out nationality wise. "Well they have a really good QB but their Canadian depth isn't where it needs to be."
    Another thing that I would add to your argument is that some Canadians, like Boyko, are opting for the AAF, thinning the pool even more. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the ratio but a small reduction wouldn't upset me.
    #PizStrong

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,869
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Looner View Post
    Another thing that I would add to your argument is that some Canadians, like Boyko, are opting for the AAF, thinning the pool even more. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the ratio but a small reduction wouldn't upset me.
    Exactly. The talent pool for Canadians is limited to begin with. Then you factor in the NFL taking the odd guy on their team either playing or on a practice roster, then you factor in there are guys more than willing to sit around just training, hoping some NFL team calls rather than play because they don't want to get hurt. Now there is the AAF taking guys.

    There are good Canadians and I don't want to eliminate the ratio but make it sustainable. It blows me away and Lowetide talked about it again how it's a non starter for some people. Boateq is a great story and was able to come in and quickly make an impact. Well he is the rarity. Most guys take years to become impact players if at all. Take Beard. He looks to be the Esks starting center for this season as he seemingly took over the job this past season and spent most of the year as a starter. He's a 2015 draft pick. Before this season it took him 4 years as a back up/practice roster guy to establish himself as a starter. Lots of guys never become starters.
    Remember winning is not enough according to Len Rhodes, President of a professional sports team.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,504
    vCash
    675
    Rep Power
    361

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    If there is to be a reduction in the ratio, either starters or roster spots, I think it makes sense that it would be concurrent with the addition of a tenth team. While some might think it's a more emergent issue, I don't think the game is broken from a talent perspective. Yes, there are challenges to find starting-calibre Canadian players as injuries start to pile up, but that is one of the well-known strategic elements in the game.

    I think Boydo makes a good point about Canadian player providing inspiration... showing that there is a path for Canadian youth to play at the CFL level. Part of why it matters to me is that there are a lot more Canadian players that tend to live year-round in the community and give back. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of American players that also do this, but it seems much more likely that Canadians embrace the role they find themselves in for the community, whereas most Americans will be leaving town within a week or two of the season ending. That may not show up on the field, but it is a strong pull for me to have guys like Ryan King, Calvin McCarty and Andrew Harris in the CFL. They don't necessary go away if we move from 7 to 6 starters, but if you eliminate the ratio altogether, it's hard to imagine that Andrew Harris, one of the current best backs in the game, would have warranted the patience to get his shot to develop into the player he has.

    With the point that some fans just want to see the best available playing - I'm not sure that a reduction in the ration is going to be meaningful there. If teams are still requiring 20+ Canadians on the roster or 5-6 Canadian starters, does a small reduction move the needle nearly enough to get them to embrace the CFL game? By the same token, for those that are pretty militant on the other side - protecting the ratio, I could see a risk of greater impact in losing some of those fans that believe that any move on the ratio could turn into a slippery slope.

    I think a lot of it comes down to what we want to ultimately achieve. If we want to encourage more and better development of Canadian talent, paring back the ratio doesn't help that, even if some deem that there is not currently enough supply to meet the demand. Cutting the demand is not going to grow the supply. If the goal is a different distribution of salaries (as some import players are looking for), I could see a reduction of Canadian starters making for a slightly reduced demand for those guys and a small paring back of salaries paid to them... but does that go to the American players? Does that get eaten up in one big QB raise? Does that get negotiated away in the CBA (less demand to pay players more could create less of a case to raise the cap by as much)?

    The dangerous part is over-simplification... and on Twitter, that has seemed way too prevalent.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,869
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWhiteNorth View Post
    If there is to be a reduction in the ratio, either starters or roster spots, I think it makes sense that it would be concurrent with the addition of a tenth team. While some might think it's a more emergent issue, I don't think the game is broken from a talent perspective. Yes, there are challenges to find starting-calibre Canadian players as injuries start to pile up, but that is one of the well-known strategic elements in the game.

    I think Boydo makes a good point about Canadian player providing inspiration... showing that there is a path for Canadian youth to play at the CFL level. Part of why it matters to me is that there are a lot more Canadian players that tend to live year-round in the community and give back. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of American players that also do this, but it seems much more likely that Canadians embrace the role they find themselves in for the community, whereas most Americans will be leaving town within a week or two of the season ending. That may not show up on the field, but it is a strong pull for me to have guys like Ryan King, Calvin McCarty and Andrew Harris in the CFL. They don't necessary go away if we move from 7 to 6 starters, but if you eliminate the ratio altogether, it's hard to imagine that Andrew Harris, one of the current best backs in the game, would have warranted the patience to get his shot to develop into the player he has.

    With the point that some fans just want to see the best available playing - I'm not sure that a reduction in the ration is going to be meaningful there. If teams are still requiring 20+ Canadians on the roster or 5-6 Canadian starters, does a small reduction move the needle nearly enough to get them to embrace the CFL game? By the same token, for those that are pretty militant on the other side - protecting the ratio, I could see a risk of greater impact in losing some of those fans that believe that any move on the ratio could turn into a slippery slope.

    I think a lot of it comes down to what we want to ultimately achieve. If we want to encourage more and better development of Canadian talent, paring back the ratio doesn't help that, even if some deem that there is not currently enough supply to meet the demand. Cutting the demand is not going to grow the supply. If the goal is a different distribution of salaries (as some import players are looking for), I could see a reduction of Canadian starters making for a slightly reduced demand for those guys and a small paring back of salaries paid to them... but does that go to the American players? Does that get eaten up in one big QB raise? Does that get negotiated away in the CBA (less demand to pay players more could create less of a case to raise the cap by as much)?

    The dangerous part is over-simplification... and on Twitter, that has seemed way too prevalent.
    I think reducing the Canadian requirement even by 1 position could make a HUGE difference. Take the Esks Oline as an example. I know that some do not agree with a lot of what I say but I think we can all agree that for a big chunk of last season, the Oline had some problems. If your Oline struggles, then your running game struggles. If your Oline struggles, then your passing game struggles because the QB doesn't have the time to find open receivers. If your Oline struggles, that most likely means your offense isn't moving the ball much which makes it so your defense is on the field more. Even a good defense if they are on the field for most of the game, eventually they get tired and worn down and they give up points.

    The Esks went out and signed Rogers, one of the best Lt tackles in the league. Good signing. They went out and resigned Bond who's a good guard. Both of these guys are American. They have Draheim and Kelly too play the right tackle spot I assume. Both aren't elite but I think Draheim can do a good enough job. They also have Beard at center who is solid and I assume O'Donnell will be the other guard. When I look at those 5, I feel pretty good about the Oline. But for most teams, they like to have more Canadians than Americans on the Oline in order to get rid of some Canadian starters spots. Who I see as the Esks starting 5 Oline has 3 Americans and 2 Canadians. Ratio wise, I see a problem. They eliminated a Canadian spot on the Oline. So they have to find another Canadian starter spot to make up for the one they lost on the Oline. Right now, I am not seeing it. I don't pretend to be an expert on all the Esks players but I thought the Esks Canadian depth was a bit weak last year and this offseason, I have seen them sign a ton of Americans who I assume they plan on starting. So if the league eliminated 1 Canadian spot, that wouldn't remove the incentive for Canadian kids to try to make it because there are still spots for them but it would allow for the Esks to play their best line up.

    If you really want to make sure the Canadian content remains super important, why not make an incentive for teams to want to start MORE than the quota. You still cut back the quota slightly to help with sustainability from the lower levels to supply Canadian talent but if you are the rare team that is blessed with extra Canadian starters, why not give them some cap relief for starting an extra guy. Maybe that extra Canadian guy doesn't count. There has to be something they can do to help. Right now I see teams being forced to dress Canadian guys who are flat out not ready or just not good enough because they don't have a choice. That shouldn't be the case. If you reduce the starting quota by 1 guy, it doesn't sound like a lot but every team is 1 more guy deeper. With the limited rosters in the CFL, 1 guy deeper could be HUGE.
    Last edited by Sectionq; 03-20-2019 at 08:41 AM.
    Remember winning is not enough according to Len Rhodes, President of a professional sports team.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Campbell River BC
    Posts
    7,658
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    655

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionq View Post
    I think reducing the Canadian requirement even by 1 position could make a HUGE difference. Take the Esks Oline as an example. I know that some do not agree with a lot of what I say but I think we can all agree that for a big chunk of last season, the Oline had some problems. If you Oline struggles, then your running game struggles. If your Oline struggles, then your passing game struggles because the QB doesn't have the time to find open receivers. If your Oline struggles, that most likely means your offense isn't moving the ball much which makes it so your defense is on the field more. Even a good defense if they are on the field for most of the game, eventually they get tired and worn down and they give up points.

    The Esks went out and signed Rogers, one of the best Lt tackles in the league. Good signing. They went out and resigned Bond who's a good guard. Both of these guys are American. They have Draheim and Kelly too play the right tackle spot I assume. Both aren't elite but I think Draheim can do a good enough job. They also have Beard at center who is solid and I assume O'Donnell will be the other guard. When I look at those 5, I feel pretty good about the Oline. But for most teams, they like to have more Canadians than Americans on the Oline in order to get rid of some Canadian starters spots. Who I see as the Esks starting 5 Oline has 3 Americans and 2 Canadians. Ratio wise, I see a problem. They eliminated a Canadian spot on the Oline. So they have to find another Canadian starter spot to make up for the one they lost on the Oline. Right now, I am not seeing it. I don't pretend to be an expert on all the Esks players but I thought the Esks Canadian depth was a bit weak last year and this offseason, I have seen them sign a ton of Americans who I assume they plan on starting. So if the league eliminated 1 Canadian spot, that wouldn't remove the incentive for Canadian kids to try to make it because there are still spots for them but it would allow for the Esks to play their best line up.

    If you really want to make sure the Canadian content remains super important, why not make an incentive for teams to want to start MORE than the quota. You still cut back the quota slightly to help with sustainability from the lower levels to supply Canadian talent but if you are the rare team that is blessed with extra Canadian starters, why not give them some cap relief for starting an extra guy. Maybe that extra Canadian guy doesn't count. There has to be something they can do to help. Right now I see teams being forced to dress Canadian guys who are flat out not ready or just not good enough because they don't have a choice. That shouldn't be the case. If you reduce the starting quota by 1 guy, it doesn't sound like a lot but every team is 1 more guy deeper. With the limited rosters in the CFL, 1 guy deeper could be HUGE.
    I'm sure you are surprised by I disagree about our Canadian talent from last year as for the most part we had 8 nationals listed as starters (1 more than required) We also finished the year with only 2 nationals listed as starters on the Oline. To end the year we had 2 on the Oline, 1 corner, 1 safety, 1 linebacker, 1 fullback and 1 receiver. Corner should be stronger this year with Onyeka having a year of seasoning and I feel like the addition of Smith also makes our Receiver position stronger as well.
    #PizStrong

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,504
    vCash
    675
    Rep Power
    361

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionq View Post
    I think reducing the Canadian requirement even by 1 position could make a HUGE difference. Take the Esks Oline as an example. I know that some do not agree with a lot of what I say but I think we can all agree that for a big chunk of last season, the Oline had some problems. If you Oline struggles, then your running game struggles. If your Oline struggles, then your passing game struggles because the QB doesn't have the time to find open receivers. If your Oline struggles, that most likely means your offense isn't moving the ball much which makes it so your defense is on the field more. Even a good defense if they are on the field for most of the game, eventually they get tired and worn down and they give up points.

    The Esks went out and signed Rogers, one of the best Lt tackles in the league. Good signing. They went out and resigned Bond who's a good guard. Both of these guys are American. They have Draheim and Kelly too play the right tackle spot I assume. Both aren't elite but I think Draheim can do a good enough job. They also have Beard at center who is solid and I assume O'Donnell will be the other guard. When I look at those 5, I feel pretty good about the Oline. But for most teams, they like to have more Canadians than Americans on the Oline in order to get rid of some Canadian starters spots. Who I see as the Esks starting 5 Oline has 3 Americans and 2 Canadians. Ratio wise, I see a problem. They eliminated a Canadian spot on the Oline. So they have to find another Canadian starter spot to make up for the one they lost on the Oline. Right now, I am not seeing it. I don't pretend to be an expert on all the Esks players but I thought the Esks Canadian depth was a bit weak last year and this offseason, I have seen them sign a ton of Americans who I assume they plan on starting. So if the league eliminated 1 Canadian spot, that wouldn't remove the incentive for Canadian kids to try to make it because there are still spots for them but it would allow for the Esks to play their best line up.

    If you really want to make sure the Canadian content remains super important, why not make an incentive for teams to want to start MORE than the quota. You still cut back the quota slightly to help with sustainability from the lower levels to supply Canadian talent but if you are the rare team that is blessed with extra Canadian starters, why not give them some cap relief for starting an extra guy. Maybe that extra Canadian guy doesn't count. There has to be something they can do to help. Right now I see teams being forced to dress Canadian guys who are flat out not ready or just not good enough because they don't have a choice. That shouldn't be the case. If you reduce the starting quota by 1 guy, it doesn't sound like a lot but every team is 1 more guy deeper. With the limited rosters in the CFL, 1 guy deeper could be HUGE.
    The O-line example that you picked is an interesting one. Conventional thought is that, particularly at LG, C and RG, they are Canadian positions. Is there any really good excuse (other than a whack of injuries at the same position) for not being able to start 3 Canadian O-linemen? To my thinking, playing an American on the interior of the O-line is a luxury more than a need... and if it is a need coming out of training camp when everyone's most likely to be healthy, then it points to either an unorthodox approach or poor roster planning/management.

    One could also choose the receiving position to make your point. The last few years, the Esks have had an embarrassment of riches in terms of American receivers, and it was, at times, either a choice between sitting one and playing a Canadian receiver, or making roster sacrifices elsewhere.

    I don't think many people would argue that trimming the need for a 7th Canadian starter could, in many cases, allow for a modest boost in play. Not every team is talking about the difference between Natey Adjei and Bryant Mitchell or Travis Bond and Jacob Ruby, (maybe one wants to see it as the difference between Adjei and Hazelton) but yes, there are cases where it could help, to the degree that the one player impacts the game. You say it could make a huge difference... I think it's more of a modest difference in most cases - a 4th American receiver is maybe going to put up a 4-45 line more often than a 7-120-1 stat line.

    If the goal is incremental improvement in the caliber of play, then maybe it's the right track. I still maintain for the "I just want to watch the best players" folks, that it wouldn't be nearly enough of a change to likely make the difference between them tuning in or not.

    If the goal is more about preserving the Canadian difference of the game, there will be some of us that don't want to yield a lot of ground, for fear that one thing leads to the next... a move from 10 starters (as it was) to 7 starters, eventually leads to 6 starters and then 5...

    I think that there has to be some consensus as to what we're trying to do and where we're trying to go if there is to be a lot of agreement on how we're going to get there, but I think it's more productive discussion than what some of the players themselves have had on social media.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,869
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Looner View Post
    I'm sure you are surprised by I disagree about our Canadian talent from last year as for the most part we had 8 nationals listed as starters (1 more than required) We also finished the year with only 2 nationals listed as starters on the Oline. To end the year we had 2 on the Oline, 1 corner, 1 safety, 1 linebacker, 1 fullback and 1 receiver. Corner should be stronger this year with Onyeka having a year of seasoning and I feel like the addition of Smith also makes our Receiver position stronger as well.
    Just because the Esks had "8 starters" doesn't mean they are of quality. Last season they started:
    - McCarty at fullback with another Canadian at back up. No problem for me there. Even if McCarty is way past his prime, I assume you can find another Canadian full back to basically stand there and block.
    - Adjei at receiver with Behar a back up. Sometimes they had to start both. Sorry, but those guys aren't good enough starters. Could one of be a back up, sure but to start, no. They need an upgrade for them.
    - Boateq at D end. He's a very good D End. No problem with him. But Nadon was the back up. He's not good enough. He's not even on the team anymore. But for the argument of starters, he's fine.
    - Beard and O'Donnell are good starters. No problem there.
    - King/Woodman at safety. Either are good enough, not close. Weak point of the secondary. We all complain about them almost every game. Both aren't with the team.
    - Konar at LB. He's decent. I don't think he's elite but good enough.
    - Colquhoun can start at CB and be good enough.

    So if you look, the Esks started 8 Canadian, 2 of which aren't good enough. So the way I look at it, they were short because they need to upgrade those spots. I understand that every team isn't perfect and every team have spots who in a perfect world, you could upgrade it. But IMO, no team should have spots where the scheme has to for lack of a better term hide. The Esks defense had to "hide" their safety. Those 2 weren't close to being good enough and it was a weak point of the secondary that the opposing team didn't have to worry about and at times could exploit. A better safety would 100% make the Esks defense better. The combination of Adjei and Behar at starting receiver weren't good enough and was a weak point. Could they go out there, run some routes, block a little and if the ball was thrown to them perfectly, could they make the odd catch? Yes. But are a legit weapon? No. Do teams have to scheme for them? No. If other teams are able to shut down some of your main receivers, were those too capable of picking up the slack? No. If an in game injury happened, could one of those 2 slide into a different spot that was occupied by an American and your offense keep going for the most part. No.
    Remember winning is not enough according to Len Rhodes, President of a professional sports team.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,869
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWhiteNorth View Post
    The O-line example that you picked is an interesting one. Conventional thought is that, particularly at LG, C and RG, they are Canadian positions. Is there any really good excuse (other than a whack of injuries at the same position) for not being able to start 3 Canadian O-linemen? To my thinking, playing an American on the interior of the O-line is a luxury more than a need... and if it is a need coming out of training camp when everyone's most likely to be healthy, then it points to either an unorthodox approach or poor roster planning/management.

    One could also choose the receiving position to make your point. The last few years, the Esks have had an embarrassment of riches in terms of American receivers, and it was, at times, either a choice between sitting one and playing a Canadian receiver, or making roster sacrifices elsewhere.

    I don't think many people would argue that trimming the need for a 7th Canadian starter could, in many cases, allow for a modest boost in play. Not every team is talking about the difference between Natey Adjei and Bryant Mitchell or Travis Bond and Jacob Ruby, (maybe one wants to see it as the difference between Adjei and Hazelton) but yes, there are cases where it could help, to the degree that the one player impacts the game. You say it could make a huge difference... I think it's more of a modest difference in most cases - a 4th American receiver is maybe going to put up a 4-45 line more often than a 7-120-1 stat line.

    If the goal is incremental improvement in the caliber of play, then maybe it's the right track. I still maintain for the "I just want to watch the best players" folks, that it wouldn't be nearly enough of a change to likely make the difference between them tuning in or not.

    If the goal is more about preserving the Canadian difference of the game, there will be some of us that don't want to yield a lot of ground, for fear that one thing leads to the next... a move from 10 starters (as it was) to 7 starters, eventually leads to 6 starters and then 5...

    I think that there has to be some consensus as to what we're trying to do and where we're trying to go if there is to be a lot of agreement on how we're going to get there, but I think it's more productive discussion than what some of the players themselves have had on social media.
    When I look at any team, I do not count the elite American players when I am referring to Canadians. An elite player is always going to be a cut above. I am referring to the majority of the Americana on every team who are good players. So my expectation is that every Canadian be considered a good player. So if you were to take the name bar and number off a Canadian and an American, you wouldn't see a drastic difference in the quality of their play. You are 100% right, for those people who only want to see the best players play, getting rid of 1 spot wouldn't solve that problem but it would improve it IMO. Loner mentioned they Esks started 8 Canadian's last year. Great. But how much of a difference would it have made to the defense if the quota was down and they didn't have to play King/Woodman at safety. I think huge. I also said in my response to Loner, while they did start 8 Canadians, I felt 2 of those spots were below average. The safety position and one receiver spot.
    Remember winning is not enough according to Len Rhodes, President of a professional sports team.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,504
    vCash
    675
    Rep Power
    361

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWhiteNorth View Post
    If the goal is more about preserving the Canadian difference of the game, there will be some of us that don't want to yield a lot of ground, for fear that one thing leads to the next... a move from 10 starters (as it was) to 7 starters, eventually leads to 6 starters and then 5...
    Interesting quote from Ricky Foley as part of an article on 3DownNation...

    “Another issue I see with the ratio being decreased is that’s going to set a precedent. By being part of the CFL union for a few years that was a main thing we were worried about. Because once you open the door to decreasing the ratio to say five, the next CBA you’re opening the door to decreasing it to three or to less than that. It’s dangerous for everybody in the league if they do that.”
    https://3downnation.com/2019/03/19/r...ous-precedent/

    Not saying that he's the be all end all authority on the subject, but as a guy that served as a CFLPA rep for a number of years, he would be familiar with the PA's historic wariness around starting down these sorts of paths.

    He also makes an interesting point about the pay equity issue...

    “A lot of the issue with Americans that they have with the ratio is the difference in pay scale, the discrepancy in the wages. For example if you have a backup Canadian offensive lineman making $150,000, which isn’t unusual and you have a starting veteran American cornerback who may only be making $60,000-$70,000 and is an all-star in the league, that’s an issue,” Foley said.

    “That creates the issues of dissension between American and Canadian players. If you drop the ratio, one of the issues would be that I think it’s going to be predominantly Canadian offensive lineman that fill that ratio and I think then you’re just going to continue that pay discrepancy between offensive linemen and starting Americans, that’s my opinion.”
    By his way of thinking, a reduction to the ratio is not likely to address the inherent equity issue of a backup Cdn OL making more than an American starter at another position, but more so, it's likely to lessen the value of true ratio-breakers - a Canadian starting LB, a DE or a CB.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Campbell River BC
    Posts
    7,658
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    655

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionq View Post
    Just because the Esks had "8 starters" doesn't mean they are of quality. Last season they started:
    - McCarty at fullback with another Canadian at back up. No problem for me there. Even if McCarty is way past his prime, I assume you can find another Canadian full back to basically stand there and block.
    - Adjei at receiver with Behar a back up. Sometimes they had to start both. Sorry, but those guys aren't good enough starters. Could one of be a back up, sure but to start, no. They need an upgrade for them.
    - Boateq at D end. He's a very good D End. No problem with him. But Nadon was the back up. He's not good enough. He's not even on the team anymore. But for the argument of starters, he's fine.
    - Beard and O'Donnell are good starters. No problem there.
    - King/Woodman at safety. Either are good enough, not close. Weak point of the secondary. We all complain about them almost every game. Both aren't with the team.
    - Konar at LB. He's decent. I don't think he's elite but good enough.
    - Colquhoun can start at CB and be good enough.

    So if you look, the Esks started 8 Canadian, 2 of which aren't good enough. So the way I look at it, they were short because they need to upgrade those spots. I understand that every team isn't perfect and every team have spots who in a perfect world, you could upgrade it. But IMO, no team should have spots where the scheme has to for lack of a better term hide. The Esks defense had to "hide" their safety. Those 2 weren't close to being good enough and it was a weak point of the secondary that the opposing team didn't have to worry about and at times could exploit. A better safety would 100% make the Esks defense better. The combination of Adjei and Behar at starting receiver weren't good enough and was a weak point. Could they go out there, run some routes, block a little and if the ball was thrown to them perfectly, could they make the odd catch? Yes. But are a legit weapon? No. Do teams have to scheme for them? No. If other teams are able to shut down some of your main receivers, were those too capable of picking up the slack? No. If an in game injury happened, could one of those 2 slide into a different spot that was occupied by an American and your offense keep going for the most part. No.
    I agree with your assessment of our safety position, was frustrating but when you have the highest paid player in the league, you are going to suffer in other areas of your club, don't believe me? Wait to see the gaps in BC's lineup this year. To end the season last year they had 3 on the Oline (Stewart, Peirson and Foucault), 1 SB (Watson), 1 LB (Lokombo), 1 FB (Lumbala), 1 receiver (Johnson) and 1 safety (Thompson). To compare the receivers Shaq Johnson played in 16 games, had 28 receptions, 336 yards with 3 TDs. Behar had similar stats with 18 games played 27 receptions, 257 yards and 1 TD. As of right now the Lions have 34 Nationals listed on their roster with 2 of their playoff starters not on the team right now (Thompson and Watson) looks to me like they are looking at Woodman as their safety at this point but there is no way to know for sure.

    I could look through ALL of the teams and pull stats for the 5th receiver on the depth chart and show you that there isn't much of a gap between them and the guys we were using last year but I don't feel like doing that kind of research yet
    #PizStrong

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,504
    vCash
    675
    Rep Power
    361

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionq View Post
    When I look at any team, I do not count the elite American players when I am referring to Canadians. An elite player is always going to be a cut above. I am referring to the majority of the Americana on every team who are good players. So my expectation is that every Canadian be considered a good player. So if you were to take the name bar and number off a Canadian and an American, you wouldn't see a drastic difference in the quality of their play. You are 100% right, for those people who only want to see the best players play, getting rid of 1 spot wouldn't solve that problem but it would improve it IMO. Loner mentioned they Esks started 8 Canadian's last year. Great. But how much of a difference would it have made to the defense if the quota was down and they didn't have to play King/Woodman at safety. I think huge. I also said in my response to Loner, while they did start 8 Canadians, I felt 2 of those spots were below average. The safety position and one receiver spot.
    So your goal, if I'm understanding correctly, is to make a change - not a drastic one - to improve the quality of play in the league, correct?

    I fully agree that there would likely have been the ability to improve at Safety by having the ability to play an American there. Let's say there are 15 plays a game where the safety is involved, either directly or indirectly (coverage support, pass breakup attempt, blitzing, strongly influencing the QB through positioning, etc). King would probably be doing alright on 10 of those 15 plays. He was, after all, still a pro with experience and a great understanding of the scheme and his role. If we say that the American replacement gets up to 13/14 out of those 15 plays, we're talking about an improvement of around 3 plays a game. Those could very well be important plays some weeks, and could potentially influence results of close games, but it would be an incremental improvement in the overall play when you're talking about 1 guy out of 12 on the field, at a position that isn't deemed as key as QB, RB, LT, MLB, DE, etc. Improvement - yes.

    Now factor in that the other team gets the same benefit. The overall quality of play may still go up incrementally, as you're talking about potentially a few less mistakes, or a few plays where a physical limitation (a step slower, slightly slower reaction time, missing a tackle, etc) is removed. The benefit to the team kind of cancels out... and if anything, the team that has built less NI depth is rewarded a bit as they were more in need of the upgrade, so you're left with a small improvement on the overall quality of play.

    We agree that it's not going to be a big enough difference to necessarily attract a lot of new fans, specifically those that view the CFL as second rate due to the ratio/quotas. It likely alleviates a little frustration for some fans due to a few more plays that get made instead of missed, but is that enough to warrant the change? Is that enough of an impact?

    With no judgment - is it the right goal? I think that improving the quality of play is always an admirable thing to aim for, but it's debatable where it falls in priority with some other elements. Perhaps it's not an either/or thing, but I think that investment in officiating (training and paying more to attract talent) would have a bigger impact on the quality of play, while also improving player safety and having the biggest impact on fan frustration and the credibility of the league... and would anyone be against it?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    12,412
    vCash
    9537
    Rep Power
    974

    Re: CFL CBA Situation











    Last edited by Hugoagogo; 03-20-2019 at 10:18 AM.
    "No dress rehearsal, this is our life" - Gord Downie

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Campbell River BC
    Posts
    7,658
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    655

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugoagogo View Post










    Wow that is ultra disrespectful thing to say, way to split your team/ the league in half.
    #PizStrong

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    I'm not entirely sure myself...
    Posts
    6,277
    vCash
    2500
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    81

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    We knew Foley was like that, but disappointed to hear Andrew Harris go that route.
    "Here comes the rush...Ray looking endzone, Fred. Stamps. TOUCHDOWN!" - Fred Stamps' TD with 8 seconds left against the Stampeders in 2009

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,504
    vCash
    675
    Rep Power
    361

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Looner View Post
    Wow that is ultra disrespectful thing to say, way to split your team/ the league in half.
    Almondo should know better.

    Ricky should know better.

    Harris should know better.

    I am adamantly opposed to "stay in your lane" approaches where people think that players should just play and not express opinions, but from a brand management perspective and with some understanding of the greater good, there are a lot of instances where better discretion needs to be used before getting into direct beefs with guys. Calling a guy irrelevant or telling a guy to go play somewhere else if you don't accept everything the way it is here are not productive. A right to express their opinion - absolutely, but are they doing themselves and the players any good by doing this sort of thing publicly - I don't think so.

    Almondo and Ricky both served as CFLPA reps at the same time, with Almondo still continuing to do so.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Campbell River BC
    Posts
    7,658
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    655

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWhiteNorth View Post
    Almondo should know better.

    Ricky should know better.

    Harris should know better.

    I am adamantly opposed to "stay in your lane" approaches where people think that players should just play and not express opinions, but from a brand management perspective and with some understanding of the greater good, there are a lot of instances where better discretion needs to be used before getting into direct beefs with guys. Calling a guy irrelevant or telling a guy to go play somewhere else if you don't accept everything the way it is here are not productive. A right to express their opinion - absolutely, but are they doing themselves and the players any good by doing this sort of thing publicly - I don't think so.

    Almondo and Ricky both served as CFLPA reps at the same time, with Almondo still continuing to do so.
    I agree, will be interesting to see if this divides the Bombers locker room, as you would think the imports wouldn't be to happy with the comment or the middle finger emoji
    #PizStrong

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,504
    vCash
    675
    Rep Power
    361

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Looner View Post
    I agree, will be interesting to see if this divides the Bombers locker room, as you would think the imports wouldn't be to happy with the comment or the middle finger emoji
    Locker rooms deal with this sort of trash talk, bravado and strong opinions all the time - this isn't likely anything new for them. This is more so, imo, a public airing of it.

    Winnipeg, in particular, has a strong Canadian influence on their locker room culture, with O'Shea and Walters (the F'n Canadian Mafia), and two veteran CFLPA reps in Remple and Neufeld. You've also got leaders like Bighill and Nichols that are going to be cool heads and unifying forces. I could see this sort of thing being a bigger deal in some locker rooms, but I don't think it will be an issue in Wpg.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Campbell River BC
    Posts
    7,658
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    655

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWhiteNorth View Post
    Locker rooms deal with this sort of trash talk, bravado and strong opinions all the time - this isn't likely anything new for them. This is more so, imo, a public airing of it.

    Winnipeg, in particular, has a strong Canadian influence on their locker room culture, with O'Shea and Walters (the F'n Canadian Mafia), and two veteran CFLPA reps in Remple and Neufeld. You've also got leaders like Bighill and Nichols that are going to be cool heads and unifying forces. I could see this sort of thing being a bigger deal in some locker rooms, but I don't think it will be an issue in Wpg.
    could very well be right but are the imports likely to stick up for Harris after these comments or are they less likely to go the extra mile for him? As a youth hockey coach I've always told my teams that I'll take a penalty for teammates sticking up for each other as I find it can make an unbreakable bond.
    #PizStrong

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,869
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWhiteNorth View Post
    So your goal, if I'm understanding correctly, is to make a change - not a drastic one - to improve the quality of play in the league, correct?

    I fully agree that there would likely have been the ability to improve at Safety by having the ability to play an American there. Let's say there are 15 plays a game where the safety is involved, either directly or indirectly (coverage support, pass breakup attempt, blitzing, strongly influencing the QB through positioning, etc). King would probably be doing alright on 10 of those 15 plays. He was, after all, still a pro with experience and a great understanding of the scheme and his role. If we say that the American replacement gets up to 13/14 out of those 15 plays, we're talking about an improvement of around 3 plays a game. Those could very well be important plays some weeks, and could potentially influence results of close games, but it would be an incremental improvement in the overall play when you're talking about 1 guy out of 12 on the field, at a position that isn't deemed as key as QB, RB, LT, MLB, DE, etc. Improvement - yes.

    Now factor in that the other team gets the same benefit. The overall quality of play may still go up incrementally, as you're talking about potentially a few less mistakes, or a few plays where a physical limitation (a step slower, slightly slower reaction time, missing a tackle, etc) is removed. The benefit to the team kind of cancels out... and if anything, the team that has built less NI depth is rewarded a bit as they were more in need of the upgrade, so you're left with a small improvement on the overall quality of play.

    We agree that it's not going to be a big enough difference to necessarily attract a lot of new fans, specifically those that view the CFL as second rate due to the ratio/quotas. It likely alleviates a little frustration for some fans due to a few more plays that get made instead of missed, but is that enough to warrant the change? Is that enough of an impact?

    With no judgment - is it the right goal? I think that improving the quality of play is always an admirable thing to aim for, but it's debatable where it falls in priority with some other elements. Perhaps it's not an either/or thing, but I think that investment in officiating (training and paying more to attract talent) would have a bigger impact on the quality of play, while also improving player safety and having the biggest impact on fan frustration and the credibility of the league... and would anyone be against it?
    You are correct, I want the league to be as good as possible. Ever heard the saying, A CFL team is only as good as your worst Canadian? I believe that is true. Like I said, I don't want them to get rid of all the Canadians. I see some value in having spots for them. I just want every team in this league to not be hamstringed like I believe they are because of the ratio. With the draw of the NFL, with the draw of the new league and with the Canadian football system which is getting better and better but still doesn't produce enough, there just isn't enough good enough Canadians to meet the need. When a Samuel Giguere who's a 33 yr old Canadian receiver and who every team decided at the start of last year, he was done so he wasn't signed last year and did not attended a camp, can just get called up by the Esks mid season and actually start some games, I see that as a problem. That means they didn't have anyone better so they called him up out of desperation because of the ratio. That to me is a flaw in the system. Simeon Rottier retired last May. Decided he was too banged up and just didn't want to do it anymore. Didn't do camp, who knows how much he trained, didn't practice or play for the whole season. The Riders out of desperation called him up and signed him Nov 5, 2018. Now all he did I believe was be a back up, not 100% sure he dressed or not. But he was retired for a whole season and could still get a job all because he was Canadian. It had nothing to do with his ability, it was 100% his passport. I don't see how that is right.
    Remember winning is not enough according to Len Rhodes, President of a professional sports team.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Campbell River BC
    Posts
    7,658
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    655

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionq View Post
    You are correct, I want the league to be as good as possible. Ever heard the saying, A CFL team is only as good as your worst Canadian? I believe that is true. Like I said, I don't want them to get rid of all the Canadians. I see some value in having spots for them. I just want every team in this league to not be hamstringed like I believe they are because of the ratio. With the draw of the NFL, with the draw of the new league and with the Canadian football system which is getting better and better but still doesn't produce enough, there just isn't enough good enough Canadians to meet the need. When a Samuel Giguere who's a 33 yr old Canadian receiver and who every team decided at the start of last year, he was done so he wasn't signed last year and did not attended a camp, can just get called up by the Esks mid season and actually start some games, I see that as a problem. That means they didn't have anyone better so they called him up out of desperation because of the ratio. That to me is a flaw in the system. Simeon Rottier retired last May. Decided he was too banged up and just didn't want to do it anymore. Didn't do camp, who knows how much he trained, didn't practice or play for the whole season. The Riders out of desperation called him up and signed him Nov 5, 2018. Now all he did I believe was be a back up, not 100% sure he dressed or not. But he was retired for a whole season and could still get a job all because he was Canadian. It had nothing to do with his ability, it was 100% his passport. I don't see how that is right.
    While I support them reducing the ratio, The more I think about it, the more i think they need to tie it to expansion. You are making generalizations about players and teams that you don't know the whole story about. Maybe Giguere made the decision not to play last year due to injuries, not lack of opportunity, or maybe the Eskies weren't happy with their special teams play and were looking for someone with experience, or they weren't happy with the blocking ability of their current receivers.

    To say that each team is only as good as their worst Canadian is a gross exaggeration. I believe the saying is something along the line of "a team is only as good as their Canadian content", which is a completely different statement. Would I blow my budget on a 5th receiver, be it national or international, no I wouldn't as they are likely to see limited action and targets. The Eskimos potentially have 3 ratio busters in their lineup (Boateng, Arjen, Tevaun Smith/Konar) 3 of these 4 players has show the ability to not only play in this league but to be game changers. That coupled with some highly touted backups such as CMT, Bealieu and Onyeka leaves us in a decent spot even BEFORE the upcoming draft.

    IMO the real problem is roster size (I can see why they limit it as they are trying to cost control) but if you expanded the PR it would allow us to groom players as opposed to having to sign last minute guys (Which happens with both nationals and internationals)
    #PizStrong

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,869
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Looner View Post
    While I support them reducing the ratio, The more I think about it, the more i think they need to tie it to expansion. You are making generalizations about players and teams that you don't know the whole story about. Maybe Giguere made the decision not to play last year due to injuries, not lack of opportunity, or maybe the Eskies weren't happy with their special teams play and were looking for someone with experience, or they weren't happy with the blocking ability of their current receivers.

    To say that each team is only as good as their worst Canadian is a gross exaggeration. I believe the saying is something along the line of "a team is only as good as their Canadian content", which is a completely different statement. Would I blow my budget on a 5th receiver, be it national or international, no I wouldn't as they are likely to see limited action and targets. The Eskimos potentially have 3 ratio busters in their lineup (Boateng, Arjen, Tevaun Smith/Konar) 3 of these 4 players has show the ability to not only play in this league but to be game changers. That coupled with some highly touted backups such as CMT, Bealieu and Onyeka leaves us in a decent spot even BEFORE the upcoming draft.

    IMO the real problem is roster size (I can see why they limit it as they are trying to cost control) but if you expanded the PR it would allow us to groom players as opposed to having to sign last minute guys (Which happens with both nationals and internationals)
    I don't think saying a team is only as good as it's worst Canadian is a gross exaggeration. Football in most ways is a 1 on 1 sport. Oline line up against the Dline, they fly into one another and if you aren't up to the task, you get beat. If the Olineman isn't strong enough or fast enough or his feet aren't good enough, he gets schooled and the QB gets drilled. So if you are playing a Canadian Olineman who's alright but really he's starting because of his passport, that could be a problem. If you have a defensive back or safety who's half a step behind or his technique isn't quite as good or he doesn't read the play as fast as an American like we had with King and Woodman, teams throw at them, they miss an assignment, they don't cover off someone at the right time or go to the right spot, they get burned.

    I am a proud Canadian and I firmly believe that any Canadian player can be a darn good one. What I don't believe in is handing guys jobs just because of their passport. I believe that the best players will always play no matter where they were born.
    Remember winning is not enough according to Len Rhodes, President of a professional sports team.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Windsor Ontario
    Posts
    3,204
    vCash
    100
    Rep Power
    82

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    I believe a full 53 man Roster and a 10 slot PR as in the NFL etc would solve a lot of this as there could be room for more specialists. CFL rosters are too small
    Run the Ball up the gut around the horn it does not matter. We run we win what is so difficult to understand.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,504
    vCash
    675
    Rep Power
    361

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionq View Post
    You are correct, I want the league to be as good as possible. Ever heard the saying, A CFL team is only as good as your worst Canadian? I believe that is true. Like I said, I don't want them to get rid of all the Canadians. I see some value in having spots for them. I just want every team in this league to not be hamstringed like I believe they are because of the ratio. With the draw of the NFL, with the draw of the new league and with the Canadian football system which is getting better and better but still doesn't produce enough, there just isn't enough good enough Canadians to meet the need. When a Samuel Giguere who's a 33 yr old Canadian receiver and who every team decided at the start of last year, he was done so he wasn't signed last year and did not attended a camp, can just get called up by the Esks mid season and actually start some games, I see that as a problem. That means they didn't have anyone better so they called him up out of desperation because of the ratio. That to me is a flaw in the system. Simeon Rottier retired last May. Decided he was too banged up and just didn't want to do it anymore. Didn't do camp, who knows how much he trained, didn't practice or play for the whole season. The Riders out of desperation called him up and signed him Nov 5, 2018. Now all he did I believe was be a back up, not 100% sure he dressed or not. But he was retired for a whole season and could still get a job all because he was Canadian. It had nothing to do with his ability, it was 100% his passport. I don't see how that is right.
    I've heard the saying... and while QB and Canadian depth and talent are two big factors in successful teams, it's a simplification to say that it all comes down to the weakest Canadian to define a team. You and I both know that sayings are just that... generalizations, and most of the time they have some merit, but don't apply in all situations.

    The Giguere and Rottier situations have some similarity - guys reaching the end of their careers, whose primary value is in what they bring to the team in terms of mentorship, experience, leadership, character, etc. In training camp, teams are looking to the future, trying to find the next guy, but once the season starts, teams often have different needs emerge week to week. Sometimes they'll be brought on by injuries, sometimes younger guys not playing as well as they had hoped, and sometimes, it's adjustments needed because another player/position has exceeded expectations and forced a change that has ripple effects. I know people inside the EEFC that credit a lot of Derel Walker's success to the help he received from Chris Getzlaf - another guy that was picked up mid-season a few times at the end of his career. Likewise, with Giguere, you've got a Canadian that's got sizeable NFL experience (that holds a ton of credibility in the room with the guys), has been a World Cup medalist in bobsleigh, and has a lot to teach younger receivers, Canadian and American, about how to conduct themselves as professionals, how to prepare their bodies and minds, etc. There were some rumoured discipline problems with the Esks receiving corps at times last year... guys being late to meetings, etc... and it wouldn't surprise me if Giguere's signing was a direct response to that.

    With the advent of two new US-based leagues, the competition for US talent is going to be much bigger. To me, this makes the Canadian talent, and continuing to do everything possible to encourage the development of it, to be that much more important. Yes - we lose some of the top guys to the NFL... sometimes for a few years, and sometimes for their whole careers. All the more reason we have to continue to work at getting both the quality and the quantity higher. I think cutting the ratio moves us further from that longer-term sustainability, even if it helps out in the short term.

    I take your point though - you want improvement in the quality of the play. If that's your primary driver, then I understand why you're supporting the move.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Campbell River BC
    Posts
    7,658
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    655

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionq View Post
    I don't think saying a team is only as good as it's worst Canadian is a gross exaggeration. Football in most ways is a 1 on 1 sport. Oline line up against the Dline, they fly into one another and if you aren't up to the task, you get beat. If the Olineman isn't strong enough or fast enough or his feet aren't good enough, he gets schooled and the QB gets drilled. So if you are playing a Canadian Olineman who's alright but really he's starting because of his passport, that could be a problem. If you have a defensive back or safety who's half a step behind or his technique isn't quite as good or he doesn't read the play as fast as an American like we had with King and Woodman, teams throw at them, they miss an assignment, they don't cover off someone at the right time or go to the right spot, they get burned.

    I am a proud Canadian and I firmly believe that any Canadian player can be a darn good one. What I don't believe in is handing guys jobs just because of their passport. I believe that the best players will always play no matter where they were born.
    So if the Lions use Woodman as their safety this year, you are saying they aren't going to be very good? I find it hard to pick one player or position and say that your team isn't going to be good as you have a weakness. In a cap world, such as the CFL, you are going to have positions that are strong and ones that are weak, its the coaches job to limit the damage or expose other teams.
    #PizStrong

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,869
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Looner View Post
    So if the Lions use Woodman as their safety this year, you are saying they aren't going to be very good? I find it hard to pick one player or position and say that your team isn't going to be good as you have a weakness. In a cap world, such as the CFL, you are going to have positions that are strong and ones that are weak, its the coaches job to limit the damage or expose other teams.
    Most of us, including yourself spent all last season saying both Woodman and King weren't good enough as safeties but because I list them in something I say, you automatically question me?
    Remember winning is not enough according to Len Rhodes, President of a professional sports team.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Campbell River BC
    Posts
    7,658
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    655

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionq View Post
    Most of us, including yourself spent all last season saying both Woodman and King weren't good enough as safeties but because I list them in something I say, you automatically question me?
    I have agreed with you on woodman/ King, where I don't agree is saying that you are only as good as your weakest Canadian.
    #PizStrong

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,869
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Looner View Post
    I have agreed with you on woodman/ King, where I don't agree is saying that you are only as good as your weakest Canadian.
    In your opinion based on what you saw of them as players. Do you think Woodman or King have a job in the CFL if they weren't Canadian.
    Remember winning is not enough according to Len Rhodes, President of a professional sports team.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Campbell River BC
    Posts
    7,658
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    655

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionq View Post
    In your opinion based on what you saw of them as players. Do you think Woodman or King have a job in the CFL if they weren't Canadian.
    As special teamers yes, as starters no. The real debate is if replacing that one guy with an international is going to make a HUGE difference in the game, I would suggest not a lot. As GWN pointed out, if you replace either of those 2 with someone more capable, the other teams will be doing the same and the overall game play won't change, it'll just consist of less Canadians. I find myself on both sides of this debate if I'm being honest, as I like the fact that we are giving Canadians an opportunity to play a professional sport but where is the breaking point? Where is the point where we are causing risk to other players but having to start players that aren't capable? I think the only ones that can truly answer this are the coaches and GM's as they are the ones that are looking at the talent.
    #PizStrong

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Windsor Ontario
    Posts
    3,204
    vCash
    100
    Rep Power
    82

    Re: CFL CBA Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Looner View Post
    So if the Lions use Woodman as their safety this year, you are saying they aren't going to be very good? I find it hard to pick one player or position and say that your team isn't going to be good as you have a weakness. In a cap world, such as the CFL, you are going to have positions that are strong and ones that are weak, its the coaches job to limit the damage or expose other teams.
    Remember how we victimized Marcel Young last season we cost him his job and drove him from the league.
    Run the Ball up the gut around the horn it does not matter. We run we win what is so difficult to understand.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •