Claude Sanders

I think this guy was in camp in 2005 or 2006 and made the team, albeit practice squad.

Assuming it is the same guy, he was released in August.

Why is he back?

The Ticats also announced that the team has signed import defensive end Claude Sanders.
Sanders was a Linebacker in NFL
He Play DE in Collage
He was Cut by Dallas Cowboys in 2005

[url=] ... ros_id=861[/url] (photo)


Exactly. What is up with re-signing these re-treads who didn't even make an impact the FIRST time they tried out with the team? Not a good sign. Where are all these exciting new imports Craig Smith has supposedly been signing? Where is our scouting?

Is this the same guy who was in camp in either 2005 or 2006 and made the practice roster?

He could be…

He could be..
But Remember the Staff is not Same as then.
so they may want get another look

Well we do have 12 guys signed so far from our its not like they havent signed anyone.

new coaches,perhaps the stank at evelualting players and with the new staff maby they will see somthing they like that the old staff didnt seem fit in there plans

Sanders was at the camp at Mac last year.He is pretty quick but rather light in the back end.Depending on what Rod Rust's defensive scheme is, Sanders could be a linebacker/ rush end candidate.
Pat Lynch (the old guy in section 7)

Maybe he is one of a pair of 'off the edge' speed rushers
that Charlie Taaffe wants on his defensive front, PL.

This term makes me think that maybe a reason why
Cheatwood and Cotton were released was that

they didn't fall into that category of Defensive End.

It is one way to look at it, but unfortunately practice and taxi squads are not always used in the conventional ways one might expect. The logic of this is that if you are on a practice squad, you aren't an impact player. That wouldn't explain how Don Matthews and Jim Popp scored big by poaching Ezra Landry off the Esks' practice roster some years ago, for example.

I prefer to look at it case-by case. Ron's point about Sanders perhaps fitting better into a Rod Rust scheme as a rush end is a valid one. If a tweener OLB/rush end DE is schemed properly, that speed edge he has can come out to shine.

Oski Wee Wee,

Can anyone else think of a speedy, around-the-corner, converted LB, rush-end DE that we might have had on the team in recent memory? :roll:

Montford at his peak might as well have been, with his ability to pursue sideline-to-sideline, but wasn't. We haven't had that kind of rush end in recent heydays since Montford and Covington were so dominant as conventional DEs. A prototypical rush end like James "Quick" Parker (the pioneer in the role in the CFL) evolved in part because the 3-4 schemes Edmonton and others used in the 80s could morph easily into 4-3 sets because those tweeners could line up as a DE and hold up against the run as well.

The evolution of NFL defences in recent years -- the zone blitzing of the Steeler's "Blitzburgh" D of DC Dick LeBeau and the multi-set packages of the Pats D under Bill Belichick are two examples -- put a premium on linebackers who can play a similar role (Willie McGinest being a prime example and the biggest, btw) of a lineman/LB hybrid. As things progress, I expect the rush end prototype to come back into vogue here since those kind of players will be drafted increasingly more due to demand.

Oski Wee Wee,