GCn20

I completely agree. Not sure what the thinking on that is at all. We need to get rid of guys that are not performing and old not young and excelling. Same goes for a very reasonably priced Redha Kramdi. He is a bargain right now. Booch hasn't liked either guy since day one, and refuses to admit both guys have turned into pretty darn good players....but MOS is the biased one...lol.

Combined income of 380k according to press reports at the time of their signings. Replacing them with 3 rookies you are looking at 220k and losing a NAT starter and all star DB. Probably not where I would trim the roster with the exception of Thomas. There are 8 other teams in this league that would jump at Kramdi at 135k. That is not a high contract for a NAT at all.

Terry Wilson DID play. Promptly went 0-3 passing. I guess we have all chosen to forget that. I guess we will also forget that ZC had two of his 3 ints after the injury tipped at the line.

Dolegala also had a year, not two weeks, to learn the offence that he was barely able to execute and lead to a disastrous record. Let's pretend his throwing stats mean more than win/loss though. As stated Dolegala had extremely limited knowledge of our playbook, had virtually no first team reps to get timing down, and has zero mobility or sand lot ability to make up for any of that. If we had put him in he probably tosses more INTs than ZC did.

Winner winner chicken dinner. The problem wasn't that we played Zach, the problem was there was no other viable option so that we didn't have to do so.

With the exception of Kramdi most of these guys aren't making enough over minimum to have a great effect on our SMS. That's not to say we shouldn't move on, but if you think there is meaningful savings letting them go there isn't. I did not include Holm because WTF? The guy is a very good DB. Also you have this huge hate on for Kramdi but he is worth every penny. Every player needs to be replaced by someone even the above and they all get paid salary too. Your savings are only what they are getting above replacement. Kolo won't be replaced for even a dollar less than what we are paying him, Wilson maybe 20-25k we could save with a rookie, Gauthier and Hallet are probably at or close to league min. We don't create meaningful SMS cutting the bottom of our roster. We gotta do it at the top and middle. Again, that's not me saying we should bring back any of those guys, just saying cutting them for SMS reasons isn't going to give us much extra SMS.

Totally 100% agree. You can have a number on a position group as a max but there should be no minimum. I don't like KW's cap skills.

If we see Elgersma starting next year something has gone incredibly wrong (injuries or desperation) or incredibly right (he just shows an incredible learning curve and talent). The former would be great but not likely. Our team has pretty much, since 2013 (with the exception of OL) not played rookie NATs in the first year of their contract and bring them along slowly. I think that is just fine. It has served us well and unless someone absolutely jumps off the page it is the best path for their development imo. Could we have given Shay/Smith more time this year? Highly debatable. On one hand, it would be nice to give every rookie meaningful reps, on the other we weren't in a situation to play fast and loose with rookie mistakes. We eked into the playoffs. If we were more secure in the standings my opinion would be different depending on whether or not they showed readiness. Brown showed well but it was a pretty limited sample size, and ZC still looked good....maybe not MOP good, but certainly upper echelon of the league good. I think this is a bad decision in hindsight but it is also the type of decision that could have gone either way. I won't beat up KW for that one. The contract he gave ZC....different story.

If we go shopping in FA, and draft well, we can be right back in the mix next year.

Or Shay/Smith would have been exposed and we do worse. Hard to say. Lot of it predicates on the belief that 2 rookie NAT LBers were ready to start. This is completely unknown at this time and therefore not a statement of fact but of opinion. Yep,,,I agree. Most here will say Elgersma the rookie, if he signs, and champion him to start all season despite rookie QBs rarely having success. We will ruin Elgersma if we rush him.

All teams say that publically. Elgersma will get a shot if he comes up for sure. Does anyone think ZC stays healthy for all 18 games? If he does we won't have to worry about whether Elgersma got his shot in year one or not. Proof? Not what I heard in his presser whatsoever. That could be mainly why he hasn't signed for sure.

I disagree wholeheartedly on what Dolegala might have done. He is a stand up, pocket passer with almost no mobility. He had extremely limited knowledge of our playbook, took almost no first team reps to build timing, and would have been facing a TO front 4 that was dominating our OL. I give him a near zero chance of winning that game if he comes in. We may all hate that Zac Collaros went back into that game, but he was the only QB on our roster that realistically gave us any shot of winning. Yes, in order to do so he would have had to be able to play through his injury but if I am the coach I would make the same call based on who was available. It's not like we didn't try Wilson, we did, and he promptly went out and laid a big fat egg. Dolegala? Not even a realistic option really IF we are truly trying to win. I get the gamble that ZC could play through didn't work, but at the time the decision was made it was the right decision imo. Anything else is laying down and gifting the win. The reality of the situation is that the second ZC got injured our chances of winning that game, no matter who we put out behind centre, pretty much dried up unless D and STs could pull out a miracle. Our offence was done. I don't think that's an unfair statement at all. ZC could have gone back into that game and we feed them a steady diet of BO and we had a chip and a chair. The problem wasn't leaving ZC in the game. The problem was the play calling once we had decided that. Buck never adjusted to the reality of that moment. We had all kinds of run packages, screens, dumps, go to the flats that ZC could have executed even with a bad finger. Instead we have him going long on his first play back in the game. It made no sense.

Yes, was our QB the highest paid? Nope. Was AH making 250k a season. Nope. I have zero issues with BO being the highest paid RB. It's all about by how much, and whether we have that luxury.

I bet if players had made more plays from 2022-2024 we would have 4 cups as well. My bet is even more likely than your bet to be accurate. Despite coaching let downs we were a play or two from winning two of those games for sure. No coach would have overcome the ZC injury. We had nothing behind him. Unless one has the incredibly far fetched idea that Jake Dolegala Or Wilson was going to lead us to victory. The last Grey Cup went down the crapper when Collaros did. He was the only QB on our roster capable of winning that game. That's just the reality of it.

I think that was the consensus on 2 out of the 3 for sure. However, many here lamented the Lawler loss for the piss poor GMing that it was. Ford would still be an overpay. Dobson, wasn't really considered an overpay by most, but replaceable with what we had in Wallace. That's why we are fans though. We don't get paid big dollars to make proper talent assessment . I mean read the forum for the past number of years, we still have guys that think that Kramdi isn't a good player. Walters does and therefore when we look back in retrospect, our opinions of the moves at the time don't have to have a great deal of accuracy. A CFL GM does not get to have the same level of accuracy as a fan, he must be better than Joe Blow.

If a rift is necessary, then a rift it must be. If that rift can't be navigated someone has to go. I would rather Walters do his job, and if the situation were to become untenable then do what else is necessary. I don't buy into the notion that Walters must be OSH's puppet for harmony. That's a cop out for Walters not doing his job.

I guess it depends on his season this year really. However, just browsing the interweb he seems to be rated as a non-draftee possible UDFA NFL type. Might be a real good guy to draft if he is still there. Not sure who ahead of us is looking at Centre so I'd say he's a guy that could fit our draft needs.

I absolutely agree and Dobson even stated he gave Walters a chance to match. That was a mistake. It wasn't as big at the time he made it, but I think our franchise can ill afford another offseason of talent bleed off like last year. Losing 4 all stars in one season, all of whom wanted to return, is piss poor GMing. I completely agree with you about how we craft our TC's. Not working. Needs a revamp. I am hoping that Miller's retention of Walters/OSH came with some directives about changing up some of their flaws. If not....this year really is on Miller. I am still of the firm belief that at the very least Walters should have been fired, and OSH if necessary to appease a new GM. The mafia isn't working right now and I think Miller is a pretty savvy guy and has given some new ways forward to the management/coaching. If not, whatever they do this year could have been prevented.

You keep saying that Osh needs to have a better eye for talent in camp. This league is small and opposing GMs are very aware and have scouted many of the same players we have. I cannot think of a single player we cut in camp that went on to be anything in this league. Teams are signing other teams cuts all the time. Our cuts have done exactly zero anywhere. That leads me to believe that it isn;t Osh's eye for talent that is the problem, it is our recruiters. If we were cutting studs some at least would turn up somewhere else. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE ZERO DEPTH. Over a 3 year span with Rigmaiden our scouting suddenly ratcheted up and we were a very deep club. He left it went back to poop again. We aren't bringing in enough talent at every position group. PERIOD. The only place we seem to be having some real good fortune is at DB. I am on record many times saying coaching lost us that Grey Cup, both roster composition but especially game plan. However, that was not the discussion whatsoever. Telling me how a carburetor works when we are talking about mufflers doesn't add anything. We all know what MOS weaknesses are. Where we disagree is how that impacts our talent level. Like I've stated, name one good player who left town because of roster composition. Look, I stated last week that I thought we should clean house. I am not defending OSH. What I am trying to point out is that anyone thinking we had a roster that could legit compete for a Grey Cup last year is smoking crack. We NEED more talent, and to be clear we also need our coach to use it properly, I think that's a pretty fair statement.

I agree that in years past we had ample opportunity to be better at giving young guys playing time. We cruised for many years easily winning our division. Could have still done so and played the youngsters more. However, I find this argument to be completely without merit this year. This year we struggled early and were fighting for a playoff spot right to the last week. We couldn't roll the dice on rookies or we may have missed the playoffs in a GC hosting year. We've heard lots about Smith/Shay not playing. Haven't heard much about anyone else. Our LBers actually played well this year. We should have sat them and played rookies in a year where one more loss and we are out of the playoffs? C'mon. That's not a valid thought process. In the past, yes, this year nope. Whether you like it or not the ALs game was an exhibition game. Both teams sat a great deal of starters. Did both teams play to win? Certainly. Was the talent level of those competing the highest level. Nope. I think the Bombers have done a real good job developing NAT talent. Not sure what you are seeing that suggests otherwise? Some hit and some miss, and none of it was due to playing time or lack thereof. Who are these NAT talents that we failed to develop and went somewhere else and found success? Name one. We've seen a few fringe NAT guys leave after their first contract due to playing time, but these aren't difference maker players. The other guys we've lost it's been solely about the benjamins. We wouldn't pay them what others were willing to do so. This fabrication that we lose good NATs for lack of playing time in year one is nonsense. Playing time in year one literally doesn't hurt their CFL careers whatsoever. They sign 3 year deals at a stipulated salary. Years 2 and 3 are where they need to be playing and we have been very good about getting anyone who is starting quality their playing time by the time they hit FA. Dobson and Ford for instance, our big FA losses last year barely saw the field in their rookie years. They still parlayed their successful first contracts into big money second contracts.

I am not sure he was entirely talking about NATs, although, the Bombers have been VERY good at retaining our top talent IMPs so I can't imagine that's what he meant. We have let a lot of IMP guys walk after their rookie contracts expire but I am yet to see a single one of them make a difference elsewhere. Fact of the matter is that NAT draft pick retention is always going to be a little more difficult because they had no choice where they were going to play to start with. You are always going to lose some after their rookie contract. However, its a GMs job to present them with a number that will make them stay. Ford there was no way he was staying, but over the years we have let some very good NATs walk in FA because we didn't want to pay.

Name the players who have left here after their first contract? I'm not arguing, just can't think of too many. Dobson? Was he first or 2nd contract? I agree that we have lost some very key players over the past several years to money tho. Our SMS may need a little reconfiguring for sure. I mean Thomas and Kolanowski aren't big budget items so the example is a little poor. However, we have allocated some heavy salary to BO, ZC, and WJ that might have been money better spent elsewhere.

That has been a revelation to me as well. From starting and using too many NATs to we never game them a chance all in the span of a month. My head is spinning.

Again...who are the guys who left town only to have enormous success after being "held back" here. Name just one. That was the claim being made. Could we split hairs on whether a guy like Rosary should have gotten more reps....I suppose....but he was a fringe talent then and would be a fringe guy now if he stuck. I mean really we are clamoring for MOS to play guys with very little upside in their game. BTW, Corcoran played because Clercius was a little knicked up. Could we have gotten more reps for Shay/Smith? Maybe. However, our record wasn't very conducive to rolling the dice with unproven rookies.

JT playing was not due to ratio.