Notable cuts across the league.

Toronto: Claude Wrotten
Edmonton: Cory Ross
Montreal: Boulay and Ferri
Calgary: McCune
Hamilton: Maurice Forbes (retired)

Claude Wroten seems like a surprise to me.

Absoluely not. In fact, I was lobbying hard for his release last year before the season ended. Wroten had great physical talent, but zero work ethic and no ability or desire to follow his assignments as a DT. And of course there was the drug issues.

Hopefully another team picks him up because I'd love to see Toronto get a chance to exploit Wroten's gap coverage, but my guess is that's the end of his CFL career.

Lobbying to whom? Or do you just mean shooting your mouth off on CFL fora? Wroten was a player that Jim Barker saw a lot in, so yeah, I'd say it's a surprise that he was released, especially during the first round of cuts. It means that a guy who came in just a year ago with some pretty high expectations wasn't even on the bubble a year later. He didn't even make it to the team's second preseason game. That's pretty surprising.

It was even a suprise to Barker...

Wroten was a complete dog. Not sure if you remember his arrival in Toronto last year was delayed because of issues with crossing the border and he didn't get in until late in camp. Whereby Toronto promptly handed him the starting DT job. The worst thing you can do to a player with a lousy work ethic is hand them a job instead of making them earn it.

If you watched any of the Toronto games last year you might have noticed how easy it was for QBs to step up in the pocket and make throws. Because Wroten had no concept or no desire to collapse the pocket and was freelancing on pretty much every play. If you ever attended any Argo practices you probably noticed Wroten constantly screwing up the play calls.

Wroten was Mike Hagen's boy and once Hagen got gassed you it was just a matter of time before Wroten met the same fate. Great to see the new Toronto coaches are not folding under pressure to bring back a burn out who should have been released a long time ago...I wonder if the Argos would ever get down on their knees and beg him to return again like Hamilton did with Cobourn.

He played nose in a 3-4. Pocket collapsing is probably the ONLY thing he is not asked to do.

Argos had a very strong front line last year.

Now if he had attitude problems this spring that you know about and I haven't been following, then you can say it's no surprise but based on how he played last year his release is a BIG surprise.

guess he was cut based on practice as he didnt even dress for the exhibition game.

You're completely wrong - - the Argos were a 4/3 team last year with only occasional flashes of a three man front. And the times when they did show a three man front it was just as often with Huntley at NT as it was Wroten.

No idea how you can say Toronto had a "very strong" DLine last year. Baffling how any CFL fan could think that. Did you notice the lack of pressure Toronto was getting last year? Not exactly the sign of a dominant DLine.

Hopefully the Lions will sign Wroten - - BC would be the PERFECT fit for him.

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Area 51. Wroten was a huge disappointment last season, the Argos played 4-3 except for a few occasions where they dropped Foley back into coverage, and their d-line was far from being strong at any time last year. The idea that they had a tough d-line to play against is a reflection of a reputation earned the year before but not lived up to last year.

No they came out of camp in 3-4. They started the year primarily 3-4. When Eiben went down it meant that 2 starting LBs (Pottinger week 1) were out of the lineup, so they used more 4-3. But Eiben went down in like week 8 or 9. They played 3-4 at least half the year. The scheme was drawn up by Garber specifically to be a3-4 set. Wroten was brought in specifically to be a nose to make that 3-4 work. Garber got fired after week 6. Steinauer admittedly did not change much scheme when he was thrown into the job. It would have been Week 9 before any significant changes were made, as Eiben got hurt in the Sask game if I recall just before the bye.

They played a lot of both 3-4 and 4-3 all year. Certainly far more 3-4 than any other team. Edmonton used a fair amount of 3-4 later in the year but they would have been a distant 2nd. You can't say that Toronto didn't play 3-4. They used it by far the most.

Besides, regardless of formation, the last thing that the DT is responsible for is collapsing the pocket. He has to stabilize the middle in order to ALLOW THE ENDS to contain or collapse.

Don’t mean to quibble prairiedog, but I question this:

Seems to me that Edmonton, with Stubler as DC last season, were in a 3/4 base set all year long. . . it’s always been Stubler’s favourite formation throughout his career. If you go to the main page, click on the Eskimos’ icon, then go to “team” and click on “depth charts” you can see their depth chart for each game last season. . . and I think with only one exception they list their defence in a 3/4.

Ok well even that notwithstanding, Toronto still played a ton of 3-4.

And like I said, regardless of formation, Wroten at DT isn't supposed to collapse the pocket. If he tries,he opens up the middle for the easiest yards on the field on the QB draw.

Ummm … Eiben played THREE games in 2011. They did not start the year with a 3-4 – the starting d-line in Week 1 – and indeed all season – was Foley-Huntley-Wroten-Flemons. On occasion Foley dropped back into coverage as a quasi-linebacker, but they never had a true 3-4 look, and they certainly did not do so coming out of training camp.

The more you continue to babble about Toronto using a phantom 3/4 defence, the harder it is to take you seriously.

Toronto started the year with Foley/Huntley/Wroten/Flemons on the DLine and Younger/Pottinger/Eiben at LB. That's a 4/3 defence my friend. Who in your mind was the phantom 4th LB in week 1? Was Flemons lining up a WLB? You're having a really bad dream here.

Pottinger got hurt in week 1 and was replaced by EJ Kuale. Still a 4/3 defence. Eiben was benched after week 3 and replaced with Cannon. That's still a 4/3. Eiben was hurt in week 6 - - not week 8 or 9 - - but it didn't change the starters since he had already been demoted at that point.

The only time Toronto really went with a three man rush last year was in week 4 at Montreal, when they had Foley drop into coverage. But they STILL had him lining up at DE in a 4/3 formation during that game.

If a team uses a three man front to defend against a hail mary pass on the last play of a game, that does not mean they're a 3/4 base defence. Not sure if you can comprehend that or not, but believe me Toronto was a 4/3 defence last year.

?
The Esks used 3-4 throughout the year as their base D with Stubler. The last 3 or 4 games they used slightly more 4-3.

Forgive me if I don't read all the depth charts, but I do watch the games. I just went back and watched highlights of the first 3 games last year and it's about 50/50 3-4 and 4-3 (LOTS of 3-4 in the Montreal game), and don't be fooled by the LBs in the gaps and on the ends. :wink:

But after reading your rather long-winded reply, you still did conveniently not answer, regardless of formation, when is a DT EVER responsible for collapsing a pocket? Furthermore when is it even not disastrous for a DT to even vacate the middle in a pocket situation? And so why does Wroten not collapsing a pocket make him a poor player?

Please tell me who you think were the 4 LBs in Toronto`s first three games last year. Foley lined up in a 2pt stance quite a bit last year - - is that what's confusing you into thinking Toronto had a 3/4 defence? Just because a guy doesn't have his hand in the dirt doesn't mean he's a LB instead of a DE. But if you want to convince yourself Toronto ran a 3/4 go right ahead...might as well tell everyone they ran a triple option offence too while you're at it.

This is like trying to explain to a woman at an Introduction to Football class. Think of the "pocket" as an umbrella. The edges of the umbrella are the OTs. The DEs are responsible for collapsing them in on the QB. The Top of the umbrella is the C and OGs. The DTs are responsible for collapsing them in on the QB.

DTs don't ever have to "vacate the middle" to collapse the pocket. If they're constantly driving the C and Gs into the backfield, the QB will step right into their arms and the RB will either do the same or else have to bounce everything outside. FYI - - those are good things. When the DTs don't get a push it gives the QB a clear path to step up into the pocket and make his throw and avoid the ends are coming around the edge.

The problem with Wroten and Huntley is they kept trying to rush wide - - not only did that leave the interior wide open it took away the two way go from the DEs. Completely useless, and that's why it was no surprise Wroten was cut once Toronto brought in a defensive coach who had half a clue.

You have it backwards my friend. The pocket collapses when one or both sides cave in. The DT has to stay in the middle when that happens or the QB will just takeoff for easy yards.

What you describe about Wroten and Huntley running wide would actually be TRYING to collapse a pocket. The DT should stabilize the middle (or get a push sure, but usually a DT is double teamed) and allow the ends or a blitzer contain and/or collapse in.

Glad I could clarify all that for you. :slight_smile:

Just as I figured - - you'd cling to the same confused notion about the DT job as you do about the Argos playing a 3/4 defence. If the DTs drive the interior OLine 5yds straight back into the backfield, is that not collapsing the pocket? Or is it a cave-in of the pocket? What part of "DTs don't ever have to "vacate the middle" to collapse the pocket" are you not grasping? So the DTs just stand on their spot and play pattycake with the C and OGs? The DTs should never be getting a push to collapse the interior of the OLine?

Getting back to my question for you - - "Please tell me who you think were the 4 LBs in Toronto`s first three games last year." Let's hear it, who are those four LBs you think you saw on the highlights?