A thought occurred to me while reading the threads on Spencer Watt and the WR Camp Battles. I thought, with the ratio flexibility the team has, do we really NEED to start Andy Fantuz? Here's my reasoning:
At the moment, we have the possibility of starting 3 National O-Linemen, 2 National Defensive Tackles, and 2 National Defensive Backs, all of whom are legitimate CFL starters. For those who can count, that equals 7 National starters, and not one of them is a receiver. Here is the breakdown:
My (projected) National starters:
OL - Dyakowski, O'Neill, Filer;
DL - Bulke, Laurent; and
DB - Stephen, Butler.
How does this help us? it gives us the flexibility to start Andy if we wish, or start 5 INTERNATIONAL RECEIVERS! What defence would like to face THIS (projected) lineup:
WR SB SB SB WR
Grant Underwood Tasker Sinkfield Tolliver
Of course, if KA still wants to START Fantuz, he could move O'Neill to Centre and start Simmons at Guard, or start Bryan Hall in place of Brian Bulke or Ted Laurent (tough decision, there).
Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Andy Fantuz. I'm just saying that we have a LOT of extremely talented National starters that gives us a huge advantage over some other teams when it comes to the ratio.
We would probably start Fantuz regardless as he is one of the best we have. But the depth of national players elsewhere means we might not need to have a national backup for him. He could start as an extra national on offence, with the "undesignated international" (the non-starting unrestricted international player) also on the offence (at any position). In that case, any national player on offence could be replaced at any time by any player, national or international.
Fantuz is the best possession receiver in the League, he has a catch radius of 12 feet and understands the Austin/Cordell
offence better than any other player, he missed some games last season because of a cheap unpenalized head shot in preseason that caused a concussion.
What Austin thinks of Fantuz
"Andy has great time and space ability," Kent Austin says. "He knows coverage, he knows how to uncover himself. He really does understand what we're doing conceptually, at a very deep level. So we're able to do more, and ask more of him, because of that."
But Woodson may turn out to be good enough that we can use him as a backup for Fantuz, and then have the extra national spot on the defence. In which case, I'd vote for Eric Harris to be the undesignated international, allowing him to come in on the offence at tight end / fullback on any play. We need to get the ball in his hands more.
I think the question probably should have been, "Do we really need to designate one of the receiver as a national position?" And the answer to that is no, given our national depth elsewhere.
Totally agreed. Fantuz is one of the best in the league and will start.
I don't know WHAT you're talking about, bobo. Deslauriers is a quality guy. Any time would be lucky to have him, yessir. I mean, seriously, when it comes to catching a football on a wide-open field in practice, or being the first guy out for scout team, or being a functioning, breathing human being who is officially listed on your roster, there's nobody better.
checks headset Wait, what? Oh, I'm sorry, you want a receiver who can get open and make plays for you?
Ray Elgaard couldn't run across the street in time to beat the "Don't Walk" light!
Rocky DiPietro ... Ben Cahoon ... Darren Flutie ... None of these guys beat you with speed. They beat you with smarts & football IQ & incredible hands & presence.
