Bombers vs Riders GDT

[Fatty Liver]

This idea that you shouldn't pay a very good kicker more than a receiver or Natl. O-lineman is short-sighted, considering they are the second most influential player behind the QB in determining a games outcome.  If the Bombers would have stuck with Lirim last year there's a good chance their record could have been 2-3 wins less and potentially missed the playoffs.  How many $$ is that worth?

[SPuDS]

Just now, Taynted_Fayth said:

I'm having a hard time with this argument.  You put the trust in your team they can stop the riders from our own 43,  but don't trust them enough to stop them from their own 45?

No, I'm not putting my faith in them stopping them in either scenario tbh.  I'd like to think they can and would in either case BUT with how that game went, I'd rather put them in a position to score less points against us.  later on in the season when our defense is firing on all cylinders (hypothetically speaking obviously) then my stance would hold more water in regards to stopping them from scoring but in this game, giving them 2 and then the ball back just seems like a bad idea to me. id much rather kick it to them and hope for good things to happen versus giving them 2 points and then hoping good things happen..

[Guest J5V]

2 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

This idea that you shouldn't pay a very good kicker more than a receiver or Natl. O-lineman is short-sighted, considering they are the second most influential player behind the QB in determining a games outcome.  If the Bombers would have stuck with Lirim last year there's a good chance their record could have been 2-3 wins less and potentially missed the playoffs.  How many $$ is that worth?

Exactly right. I equate it to a goalie in hockey. Can't overpay for the best. Their role is too important.

[Taynted_Fayth]

2 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

No, I'm not putting my faith in them stopping them in either scenario tbh.  I'd like to think they can and would in either case BUT with how that game went, I'd rather put them in a position to score less points against us.  later on in the season when our defense is firing on all cylinders (hypothetically speaking obviously) then my stance would hold more water in regards to stopping them from scoring but in this game, giving them 2 and then the ball back just seems like a bad idea to me. id much rather kick it to them and hope for good things to happen versus giving them 2 points and then hoping good things happen..

and that's where I believe starting them on their own side of the field = less points.  Sure you give up 2, but they have to work for more.  Also worth noting the previous 2 sask possessions they had a total 19 yards net offense and punted both times.  

[SPuDS]

52 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

and that's where I believe starting them on their own side of the field = less points.  Sure you give up 2, but they have to work for more.  Also worth noting the previous 2 sask possessions they had a total 19 yards net offense and punted both times.  

suppose we shall have to agree to disagree lol.  both points have merit in my mind but I still don't believe its wise to give your opposition free points at any point, especially now that it really doesn't benefit you field position-wise any longer. 

[Ripper]

1 hour ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

This idea that you shouldn't pay a very good kicker more than a receiver or Natl. O-lineman is short-sighted, considering they are the second most influential player behind the QB in determining a games outcome.  If the Bombers would have stuck with Lirim last year there's a good chance their record could have been 2-3 wins less and potentially missed the playoffs.  How many $$ is that worth?

I would suggest that paying the kicker more than a Canadian O-lineman would be a very poor idea. Likely in the high 100's or low 200's for a quality starter with experience. You are willing to pay more than that for a kicker? Like Medlock, no arguments at all. The question is what is he worth?  My team has had these crossroads with a couple of proven starters in the last 2 years. Dressler at 240k and Chick at 260k. Where does one draw the line? Interesting conversation to have for sure. The good gm's make it work somewhere else I guess

[Fatty Liver]

1 minute ago, Ripper said:

I would suggest that paying the kicker more than a Canadian O-lineman would be a very poor idea. Likely in the high 100's or low 200's for a quality starter with experience. You are willing to pay more than that for a kicker? Like Medlock, no arguments at all. The question is what is he worth?  My team has had these crossroads with a couple of proven starters in the last 2 years. Dressler at 240k and Chick at 260k. Where does one draw the line? Interesting conversation to have for sure. The good gm's make it work somewhere else I guess

Natl. O-lineman are no longer worth $200,000+ when they can be replaced by an Import making half that amount, that is an adjustment that I believe is being made on a lot of teams and will soon become the norm.

[SPuDS]

Just now, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Natl. O-lineman are no longer worth $200,000+ when they can be replaced by an Import making half that amount, that is an adjustment that I believe is being made on a lot of teams and will soon become the norm.

beg to differ.  a starting tackle or centre is easily worth that still.. you are completely forgetting about the fact they are invaluable to balancing the ratio.  every team in the league has 2 on their o-line minimum..

[Taynted_Fayth]

3 minutes ago, Ripper said:

I would suggest that paying the kicker more than a Canadian O-lineman would be a very poor idea. Likely in the high 100's or low 200's for a quality starter with experience. You are willing to pay more than that for a kicker? Like Medlock, no arguments at all. The question is what is he worth?  My team has had these crossroads with a couple of proven starters in the last 2 years. Dressler at 240k and Chick at 260k. Where does one draw the line? Interesting conversation to have for sure. The good gm's make it work somewhere else I guess

175K being compared to 240K or 260K is ridiculous. That's basically a whole other salary somewhere down the chart. I had no problem paying him what we did then because we needed a clutch kicker.  Since we acquired him he set a CFL record for most FGs (passing Dave Ridgeway btw). I think it's a telling about our offense that he had to kick so much,  but he made those kicks and has single handedly won us games kicking like 8 fgs in 1 outing.  If that's not worth the $ then I don't know what is

[Ripper]

2 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

beg to differ.  a starting tackle or centre is easily worth that still.. you are completely forgetting about the fact they are invaluable to balancing the ratio.  every team in the league has 2 on their o-line minimum..

Most teams start 3 and ideally would love to start 4 if they could. That's what made Heenan so valuable and Makowsky in his day.

[Fatty Liver]

3 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

beg to differ.  a starting tackle or centre is easily worth that still.. you are completely forgetting about the fact they are invaluable to balancing the ratio.  every team in the league has 2 on their o-line minimum..

A more appropriate sum for Natl. O-linemen would $160-$175k.  And no more $200k+ receivers, they skew the SMS and can be replaced.

[Taynted_Fayth]

2 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

beg to differ.  a starting tackle or centre is easily worth that still.. you are completely forgetting about the fact they are invaluable to balancing the ratio.  every team in the league has 2 on their o-line minimum..

With the increase in better talented NI players in other more traditionally import heavy positions, such as RB, DL, LB i think the value of NI OL is becoming more subjective.  If it's not as dire to start X amount of NI's on the line,  then there's no reason not to go cheaper with an IMP if the production is equal or better.  I honestly think days of playing 5 NI on the OL are done.

[Ripper]

2 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

175K being compared to 240K or 260K is ridiculous. That's basically a whole other salary somewhere down the chart. I had no problem paying him what we did then because we needed a clutch kicker.  Since we acquired him he set a CFL record for most FGs (passing Dave Ridgeway btw). I think it's a telling about our offense that he had to kick so much,  but he made those kicks and has single handedly won us games kicking like 8 fgs in 1 outing.  If that's not worth the $ then I don't know what is

Ridgeway is a rider legend. But sadly his best years were when we were horrible at scoring. a kicker shouldn't be kicking 59 field goals in a season

[Ripper]

2 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

  I honestly think days of playing 5 NI on the OL are done.

They are done because you would be hard pressed to find a Canadian to play tackle never mind two of them

[SPuDS]

Just now, Taynted_Fayth said:

With the increase in better talented NI players in other more traditionally import heavy positions, such as RB, DL, LB i think the value of NI OL is becoming more subjective.  If it's not as dire to start X amount of NI's on the line,  then there's no reason not to go cheaper with an IMP if the production is equal or better.  I honestly think days of playing 5 NI on the OL are done.

and I agree, hence the 2 minimum concept.  we are an excellent example of a team who uses other ratio breakers in lieu of the o-line..  BUT I don't believe there will ever be a day where a team goes all american on the o-line or even down to starting 1.  With that in mind, Canadian O-lineman who can play with their american counterparts are going to be valuable and still worth of a high end price tag.      Theres just too many spots on the team that need or are assumed to need american starters that you can't really fudge other spots without using a few on the o-line.

[Taynted_Fayth]

Just now, Ripper said:

Ridgeway is a rider legend. But sadly his best years were when we were horrible at scoring. a kicker shouldn't be kicking 59 field goals in a season

I agree they shouldn't, but if it's required I'd rather have a kicker who can make them instead of cheaping out for one that struggles.  Crapinga hitting that upright gave me some flashbacks to Harjrullahu smoking the pole vs Edmonton the year before and costing us the win.  I remember leaving that game pretty f'n dejected that when it was announced later we signed medlock I was so ecstatic I may have done a jig or 2.  

Sure it would be great if we could sign great players to low contracts but that just doesn't happen. Not really sure what other kickers make on average to compare Medlocks salary, but I'd say he's been worth every penny maybe even more

[SPuDS]

2 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

A more appropriate sum for Natl. O-linemen would $160-$175k.  And no more $200k+ receivers, they skew the SMS and can be replaced.

I somewhat agree but again, a Canadian O-lineman who is capable of playing Tackle (and to a lesser extent centre-guard) as good as or better then american counterparts, are going to be paid well.  If they can do the job as good AND free up a spot for an American elsewhere, they are going to command a fair paycheque and rightfully so.. lets not forget that not all american O-linemen are created equal.. we struggled for a long time to find some guys who could play as well as we need them to.

 

the receiver money that high, I agree..

[voodoochylde]

22 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Natl. O-lineman are no longer worth $200,000+ when they can be replaced by an Import making half that amount, that is an adjustment that I believe is being made on a lot of teams and will soon become the norm.

Especially when you construct your team in such a way as to allow for roster flexibility .. suddenly those "traditional" NI spots are up for grabs and you aren't forced to pay / play NIs when an Import might be a better option.

[JuranBoldenRules]

1 hour ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

I'm having a hard time with this argument.  You put the trust in your team they can stop the riders from our own 43,  but don't trust them enough to stop them from their own 45?

If they are going to likely score anyway, why give them 2 free points?  Not that hard to understand.

[Tracker]

Whatever the Bombers overpaid Medlock was recouped in the playoff game. Point, set and match. 

[Taynted_Fayth]

Just now, JuranBoldenRules said:

If they are going to likely score anyway, why give them 2 free points?  Not that hard to understand.

how are they going to score from their own 45? If your banking you are going to hold them to a FG then why not just bank you can keep them out of FG range and give up 2 instead of 3.  As I mentioned their previous 2 drives they had a combined 19 net yards of offense and 2 punts so its not like we were recently scorched. 

I get fans don't like to give the other team "free point" but imo giving the ball to the opponent on your side of the field is no different and should result in more than the 2 surrendered,  which it did (7).  Would we have stopped them on their side of the field? who knows... But if we ignore the hindsight of the end result, I certainly like the idea of trying to hold the riders out of FG range vs trying to hold them to a FG. Mathematically it makes more sense to give up the 2 and try for the same objective,  stop them. If we can't then we deserve to eat the points.

[BigBlue]

Rather than debating whether we should concede a safety or not, maybe we should be discussing the boneheaded circumstances that led up to being pinned deep in our own end - - that is what really matters

[bigg jay]

56 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

175K being compared to 240K or 260K is ridiculous. That's basically a whole other salary somewhere down the chart. I had no problem paying him what we did then because we needed a clutch kicker.  Since we acquired him he set a CFL record for most FGs (passing Dave Ridgeway btw). I think it's a telling about our offense that he had to kick so much,  but he made those kicks and has single handedly won us games kicking like 8 fgs in 1 outing.  If that's not worth the $ then I don't know what is

People make too much noise about the number of kicks Medlock made.  Yes, the percentage of our scoring that Medlock was responsible for was too high (imo) but the number of FG's is irrelevant.

Paredes kicked 56 last year (good for 3rd all time) but because Calgary also scored a ton of touchdowns, that part gets ignored.

[Taynted_Fayth]

4 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

People make too much noise about the number of kicks Medlock made.  Yes, the percentage of our scoring that Medlock was responsible for was too high (imo) but the number of FG's is irrelevant.

Paredes kicked 56 last year (good for 3rd all time) but because Calgary also scored a ton of touchdowns, that part gets ignored.

I think its more in the manner Medlock got his #s up so high such as kicking 8 fgs in 1 game. Sure there were a few games the bombers O put up respectable numbers and points,  but there were several games our points and victory pretty much came off the foot of Medlock.  60 FGs is only an average of 3.33 fgs per game,  but he definitely had a few games were he was kicking way above that average

[Ripper]

9 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

People make too much noise about the number of kicks Medlock made.  Yes, the percentage of our scoring that Medlock was responsible for was too high (imo) but the number of FG's is irrelevant.

Paredes kicked 56 last year (good for 3rd all time) but because Calgary also scored a ton of touchdowns, that part gets ignored.

Calgary was tops in league for points for 586. 56 field goals equals 29% of the points they scored.  Bombers 5th in league with 497. medlocks 60 field goals is 36% of the points the Bombers scored