Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Reconsidering who to re-sign in light of the designated Canadian rule

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    471
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    47

    Attention Reconsidering who to re-sign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    In light of the new rule that comes into place this year where you can assign 3 Americans as "designated Canadians', this will suddenly make some American players a lot more valuable.

    Here are a few things to consider.
    - With injuries always a consideration, we should carry at least 5 designated Canadians
    - To get the most value out of these spots, these details make designated Canadians more valuable.
    - Players who play almost every down at their position
    - Players who are durable and rarely are injured mid game
    - Players for whom we would carry a backup Canadian
    - Players who are elite at their position
    - Players who are very versatile and could fill in at numerous positions

    Below are the players from our current roster who currently qualify as designated Canadians. Which 5 would be best served to use as designated Canadians.

    1 - SirVincent Rogers - Provided he is healthy, this would be my first choice considering he would play every offensive snap and we have a solid Canadian backup in Saxelid.

    2 - Johnson, Josh - Not only was he arguably our best DB this year, he has also shown himself to be extremely versatile. I would love to be able to start him at safety as he really seems to read the game well and if we experience any injuries in backfield, he would be able to rotate over.

    3 - Gable, C.J. - This might be a controversial choice, but if he were willing to sign at a team friendly rate, this could be a sneaky good choice. A three man unit of Gable, Cooper and McCarty would make us extremely versatile, give us lots of injury security and give us almost unlimited options with single back and 2 tight end units. It would also allow us to slightly educe Gable's load.

    4 - Ellingson or Collins Jr might be a good choice, but if we use both, we would be limited in terms of replacements
    5 - If we keep Draheim or Kelly that would be a natural as we could run an all Canadian O'Line and with Saxelid baking up and O'Donnell's flexibility.

    ** Almondo Sewell would be an OK choice, but with defensive lines operating on a rotation it does complicate things a bit unless we keep Charles, Betts and Boateng along with 2 Americans and run 3 Canadians on the defensive line
    ** Larry Dean is durable and would be a ratio breaker, but we could not replace him with a Canadian
    ** The same argument could be made for Don Unamba but he is less durable.

    These moves would dramatically improve our game day lineup.


    Bazzie, Alex DL
    Bond, Travis OL
    Collins Jr., Ricky WR
    Daniels, DaVaris WR
    Dean, Larry LB
    Draheim, Tommie OL
    Ellingson, Greg WR
    Elliott, Kevin WR
    Gable, C.J. RB
    Hightower, Forrest DB
    Johnson, Josh DB
    Kelly, Colin OL
    Orange, Anthony DB
    Rogers, SirVincent OL
    Sewell, Almondo DT
    Smith, Jamill WR
    Unamba, Don LB

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,955
    vCash
    21432
    Rep Power
    218

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    The way I'm seeing this rule, it doesn't change the starting lineup much other than making it easier to simply go with 7 starting nationals as was the old rule. Most teams already had 3 or more starting Internationals that would become amended Nationals.

    The difference is that now American's who meet the amended definition will be extremely valuable as backups as they can replace an injured true National in game. Basically, this makes guys like Bond or Draheim much more valuable to the team as you can dress your Canadian linemen but if someone gets hurt, you don't need to have a backup National dressed.

    Also, makes it more reasonable to keep injury prone Nationals in the lineup as you don't need to have a National backup to replace them if injured in game (Arjen)

    All that said, the overall ratio doesn't change so there is still going to be a lot of National backups and Special teams will be loaded up with Canadians.

    So looking at our team, it means signing a couple Amended Nationals for the O-line. Perhaps your backup tailbacks/fullbacks will be amended nationals. Your backup to the starting National reciever can become an amended national.

    Your star National positions at uncommon National positions like Boateng no longer need to be supplemented with backup Nationals as an amended National can fill in when injured.

    Special teams will become an even bigger group of Nationals, possibly even exclusively National specialists.

    This makes keeping many of the guys you mention a more valuable proposition. Also makes it more desirable to retain your international players beyond their first contract as they meet the criteria one year sooner.
    Last edited by bone; 01-08-2020 at 03:17 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,955
    vCash
    21432
    Rep Power
    218

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Basically with this rule, say a team made all of its Special teams players Nationals (up to 14 players) and 7 National Starters they have they mandated 21 National players and virtually every other player could be American provided there were enough to meet the definition to handle in game injuries. However, reality is that you probably couldn't employ that many amended Nationals under the cap and odds are you'd still want at least an International returner.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    471
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    47

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    I took this from the CFLPA's memo to the players.

    "Teams will be eligible to name as National Starters a maximum of three (3) Players per game who have become National Players by virtue of the Amended definition of National, i.e. Americans who have played with the same C.F.L. team for three (3) consecutive years or who have played four (4) years in the C.F.L. These three (3) players only apply to the starter ratio, and not to the roster allocation."

    I take from this that these players can can take a Canadian's starting spot but not their roster spot.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,722
    vCash
    3657
    Rep Power
    316

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Can a moderator make it “re-sign” in the thread title?
    I was wondering why people wanted to quit & only realized that’s not what was meant when I read the 1st post.
    Thanks! ��

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,877
    vCash
    20000
    Rep Power
    92

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Gable needs to be pushed for his spot on the roster forget about being gifted what could be an extremely valuable/ versatile "loophole".
    The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary.

    Vince Lombardi

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,502
    vCash
    2000
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    315

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Quote Originally Posted by bone View Post
    The way I'm seeing this rule, it doesn't change the starting lineup much other than making it easier to simply go with 7 starting nationals as was the old rule. Most teams already had 3 or more starting Internationals that would become amended Nationals.

    The difference is that now American's who meet the amended definition will be extremely valuable as backups as they can replace an injured true National in game. Basically, this makes guys like Bond or Draheim much more valuable to the team as you can dress your Canadian linemen but if someone gets hurt, you don't need to have a backup National dressed.

    Also, makes it more reasonable to keep injury prone Nationals in the lineup as you don't need to have a National backup to replace them if injured in game (Arjen)

    All that said, the overall ratio doesn't change so there is still going to be a lot of National backups and Special teams will be loaded up with Canadians.

    So looking at our team, it means signing a couple Amended Nationals for the O-line. Perhaps your backup tailbacks/fullbacks will be amended nationals. Your backup to the starting National reciever can become an amended national.

    Your star National positions at uncommon National positions like Boateng no longer need to be supplemented with backup Nationals as an amended National can fill in when injured.

    Special teams will become an even bigger group of Nationals, possibly even exclusively National specialists.

    This makes keeping many of the guys you mention a more valuable proposition. Also makes it more desirable to retain your international players beyond their first contract as they meet the criteria one year sooner.
    The part that really bothers me about this entire process is what's to prevent a team from having a national starter fake an injury so that they can replace him with a more talented international. The league is really opening up a can of worms with this new wrinkle to the ratio.
    ôRUN THE DANG BALL!" -Leigh Anne Tuohy character from the film The Blind Side

    "Next time, take a case of Pil into the huddle. If you don't get a beer, get the hell off the field!" -New special teams coach for the Riders

    "When the Eskimos are out on defense it looks like there are two or three number 47s out there." -Duane Ford

    "...I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I enjoy the banter though ..." -Looner

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,383
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    134

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Gable is going to be 33 this year. Considering the amount of hits a running back takes over his entire career plus all the football these guys would have played before going pro, 33 is OLD for a running back. The Esks got what I think is his last good season out of him. Thank you for his service but it's time to move on.
    Blindly accept whatever they do and if it doesn't work out, I guess there's always next year.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,955
    vCash
    21432
    Rep Power
    218

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Quote Originally Posted by adb View Post
    The part that really bothers me about this entire process is what's to prevent a team from having a national starter fake an injury so that they can replace him with a more talented international. The league is really opening up a can of worms with this new wrinkle to the ratio.
    Fair enough. But with already small rosters, teams would also be risking exposing themselves to problems with not enough players elsewhere in the lineup should legitimate injuries occur during the game. They’ll have to monitor this for the first year and if teams start doing it, make some kind of adjustment.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,383
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    134

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    I don't have a problem with the rule what so ever. In the CFL, your team is only as strong as your weakest Canadian IMO. Like it or not, there simply is not enough good enough Canadians. Some Canadians play in the NFL, I am sure some will try the XFL and then there is 9 CFL teams that need good Canadians to start. If you look up and down every CFL roster, most teams have just enough to start when then there is a big drop off to the back ups. If an injury happens to a Canadian, some teams are screwed. It shouldn't be that way. Your season shouldn't hinge on if you lose a player with a Canadian passport or not but it does. The intent is to bring on a 10th CFL team in the near future. That means a whole other set of starters you have to find plus back ups. Where are these guys going to come from if the rules don't change?

    People will use "it gives players opportunity" they have opportunity right now. No one will tell me that there is a team out there considering how critical the ratio is, who has a Canadian player that is better than an American but they are holding back. If the Canadian guy can legit play at a high enough level, they play. The supply simply is not there to meet the demand. So they have to do something about it.
    Blindly accept whatever they do and if it doesn't work out, I guess there's always next year.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Spruce Grove
    Posts
    7,490
    vCash
    100
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    274

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionq View Post
    Gable is going to be 33 this year. Considering the amount of hits a running back takes over his entire career plus all the football these guys would have played before going pro, 33 is OLD for a running back. The Esks got what I think is his last good season out of him. Thank you for his service but it's time to move on.
    That’s why I moved over to WR from RB. Less punishment on an already abused frame! Thanks CJ but I think after Coop showed that he can play and do what the coaches tell him to do instead of running the play he thought it should be...
    Well, gentlemen, by all means, I think we ought to have an introspective moment of silence for poor old Tin-Tin.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    13,654
    vCash
    39376
    Rep Power
    1842

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Quote Originally Posted by boydo View Post
    That’s why I moved over to WR from RB. Less punishment on an already abused frame! Thanks CJ but I think after Coop showed that he can play and do what the coaches tell him to do instead of running the play he thought it should be...
    I am also excited about our newest RB signing, Devonte Jackson. He's not supposed to be lightning fast, but at 5'7" and 170 lbs. he supposed to be very deceptive and tricky with his cuts. I hear he also has a ton of returning experience. Perhaps we've found that guy who can contribute both as a returner and a offensive weapon as well.
    And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    984
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    52

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Not sure the designated import rule makes any difference.
    I believe the 3Downnation writer JC Abbott tweeted that on average, each team had 15 players on their roster last year that met the requirements. So 15 typically already employed of a required 3.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,877
    vCash
    20000
    Rep Power
    92

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugoagogo View Post
    I am also excited about our newest RB signing, Devonte Jackson. He's not supposed to be lightning fast, but at 5'7" and 170 lbs. he supposed to be very deceptive and tricky with his cuts. I hear he also has a ton of returning experience. Perhaps we've found that guy who can contribute both as a returner and a offensive weapon as well.
    At that size can he pass protect effectively? I'm not a Gable fan running the ball, but his protection was much greater than Coopers last year, and one of the main reasons I'd give him a shot to win the job in 2020.
    The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary.

    Vince Lombardi

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    13,654
    vCash
    39376
    Rep Power
    1842

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Quote Originally Posted by pete View Post
    At that size can he pass protect effectively? I'm not a Gable fan running the ball, but his protection was much greater than Coopers last year, and one of the main reasons I'd give him a shot to win the job in 2020.
    Based on the few clips I've seen of him I'd say emphatically, no! He was elusive, but when he was lined up to be tackled, he was taken down like any 5'7" 170 lb man would,

    And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music...

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Edmonton Area
    Posts
    44,913
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    243

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Reminds me of Blanco or Giz.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,955
    vCash
    21432
    Rep Power
    218

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Quote Originally Posted by popo View Post
    Not sure the designated import rule makes any difference.
    I believe the 3Downnation writer JC Abbott tweeted that on average, each team had 15 players on their roster last year that met the requirements. So 15 typically already employed of a required 3.
    15 sounds high (this doesn't count QBs) That would mean on average team's game day rosters only had 5 imports inside the first 4 years of their career. That can't be right.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    471
    vCash
    2000
    Rep Power
    47

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Quote Originally Posted by bone View Post
    15 sounds high (this doesn't count QBs) That would mean on average team's game day rosters only had 5 imports inside the first 4 years of their career. That can't be right.
    The first post has the Eskimos eligible players. We have 17.
    If you consider the injured guys, that brings the numbers for everyone up.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    13,654
    vCash
    39376
    Rep Power
    1842

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Quote Originally Posted by wildwest View Post
    The first post has the Eskimos eligible players. We have 17.
    If you consider the injured guys, that brings the numbers for everyone up.
    Yeah, I did a quick count of INT players currently listed on the Esks website that were either in their third year as an Eskimo or fourth year in the CFL for last season and I came up with 21. Of course that would include IR and PR.
    And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music...

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,955
    vCash
    21432
    Rep Power
    218

    Re: Reconsidering who to resign in light of the designated Canadian rule

    Quote Originally Posted by wildwest View Post
    The first post has the Eskimos eligible players. We have 17.
    If you consider the injured guys, that brings the numbers for everyone up.
    Ah. It's not a look at just game day, it includes Injured and PR players. Got it.

Posting Permissions

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