Well in this years Draft, who are you looking to take granted we have a 6th and 15th (i believe) overall picks.
Im not sure as this year i havnt gotten as much of a feel for the guys comming up. (Life has gotten in the way)
Also Im hoping with some later round picks we get a fewrEuropeans so that the Rider fanbase can grow to across the pond.
I think it depends on how real the prospect of 5 Canadian starters is and what is happening with the whole Global thing. If it is dropping to 5 straight up…I am only interested in OL, DT and a safety…ever. you think bring in LBs for special teams, rinse and repeat every few years when contracts are up. There is maybe a token wr as a contingency if he can be a leader on special teams.
There were a couple of Europeans who showed well…one RB in particular. I can see some interest in him
Perhaps a team mixes it up some with where they play them…but the idea of having 3 Canadians starting at WR/SB would be dead. 4 between the lines…maybe 3.
There will always be the clear standouts that break that mold, but look no further than the norm now. It is not written in stone, and actually has pushed new ground in recent years…but…the historical popular formula has been 3 on the OL (4 if you can), 1 DL, 1 safety, one field side WR. Logic seems to mean that “skill” positions would primarily be for US players.
Recent years we have seen more RB (I think a tradeoff for fewer SB) more LB and the odd DB…not something you generally saw a pile of a decade back…which speaks to the closing of the gap in a lot of positions. There would be teams that see a rise in price on the OL and flex out to a WR a bit probably. STs would always round out the roster, but you would part ways with them once they started having elevated contracts.
I don’t like saying that…but I think it is reality. Again, some standout…they will start or rep in. You won’t have the need to develop nationals as much. There is no question that the average US player comes in closer to ready. They come from robust systems and start playing very young and have way better resources…coaching…much like Canada’s hockey compared to the US. It’s no knock on the athletes…it’s a knock on the systems.
But again…we don’t know exactly what is being tabled for ratio changes. I tend to think that the 5 Canadian starters is only one option on the table. I think the goal is incorporating the new global players into the rosters and that providing them 2 starter spots is simply one of the options that was presented. The sales pitch is largely opening new markets and thus revenue. That means more money to players in the long run. thinks like the pending Mexican TV deals are pretty encouraging signs for the PA to want a piece of. The cost of truly selling that to foreign markets is making those spots available.
The US, on average, produces the best players around…do you take them off the field and give them to global who are on average probably behind Canadian? probably not. for some…national depth is a concern…so you address it by adjusting that headcount. Is that straight up 2 globals? I think that is tough. If you need to have 2 of them in the game, then you need to have backups on the 44. So what…4…5 dressed? maybe 3 if they are on the same side of the ball? The concern right now is depth…finding starter ready Canadians late in the season after injury…something I will say that Jones pushed diversity of positions played by each player on, making it way easier…so does filling those spots with “maybe” on par with the Canadians they are replacing have the benefit that everyone is talking when they assume a reduction means more US players starting? I don’t see it. Maybe I am wrong…maybe they are going to have 2 more US players start PLUS have a few globals on the roster…I highly doubt it…and the small amounts getting out there sure don’t make that sound to be the case.
Now on the other hand…if they mix the nationals and the globals together and those make up 6 or 7 ratio spots instead of them mandating 2 global starters…different story. This would be my preference…treat that combined group the same, but simply mandate you need X amount on the 44. 2019 you need 2…2020 to 3…2021 to 4…something like that. it opens the CFL to those players…that is huge for those global markets…but it makes them fight it out for the snaps…whomever wins gets them, the others are more focused on ST. If something like that happens then nothing really changes. You have a wider pool to fill those spots from…but you still need the 6 or 7.
So yeah…long and short it really depends on what way it is looking like it is going to go…and that is only a couple examples. They could take 1 roster spot from internationals and 1 or 2 from nationals…who knows…lots of ways it can swing.
So yeah…realistically…if your first 3 rounds in the draft produce one keeper / starter per year (even a year or 2 down the road) you don’t need to develop players. It is a blessing and a curse…better drawing pools are good…but no question it is going to prevent some careers…and some ex Canadian players that are pretty big names in their have expressed that they probably wouldn’t have made it under a 5 nationals starter ratio…but at 7 ratio spots blended…not too big of an impact on that.
it might have some impact. I think if the mission was simply bringing in global players…yes…absolutely. However…the actual goal is growing overall options for Canadian players. I think we all know that there are at times nationals on the roster who probably shouldn’t be there…but they need to fill that ratio. CFL 2.0 opens doors for them to play abroad in other leagues. Maybe you get a chance to play in Italy for a couple years…much like many hockey and basketball players…go for it. Live a new place. Continue playing for a while. Some of those guys go there and after a year or 2…hey…maybe they are now ready for the CFL. If nothing else, they got to keep playing and also probably help make those leagues better…which in the long run improves the players coming here.
So if a team chooses to continuing to disregard any Canadian QB for some US DII or DIII player.
That leaves teams with only 19 Positional Internatonal player non QBs.
With one of the position of the Starting Internatiobals being a QB.
let alone if a team carries a US kicker. That would lower the number to just 18 international positional players on game day roster.
Add in the era of Dline rotations.
Different offensive packages.
5 National may only be required to start.
But plenty of regular playing time will be there for Canadians whether they are technically " on 5 will Be Starters"
O packages and D rotations & different packages. There will be a plenty of time for Natiobal players
I’m not super familiar with the Titans new depth…will refresh myself later and give my speculation anyways. Personally, I’m more keen on Lenius getting here sooner rather than later. He has potential to rotate with Lavoie pretty quickly and build into a JWL like role…inside stuff with ample blocking. McInnis is a perimeter guy
What do you guys think? Do you feel like we've added some good quality depth? Are there guys you wished we had gotten at different picks?
Personally i found it difficult (being a new father) to pay attention to these guys especially with the Covid stuff.