GDT - Week 16 - The Champs @ The Stamps

[17to85]

37 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Article 5 says only 2 QB's & only one on the field at a time. If teams could dress a third QB, they couldn't be designated as a QB. That would circumvent the rule that QB's can only play QB and the only one QB on the field at a time parts of Acticle 5. Last season MOS said we couldn't roster Streveler as anything but a QB because we'd designated him as a QB and couldn't change that designation once it had been made at the league level. (I can't find a rule that says this, but I believe MOS.)

If it were as simple as rostering a 3rd QB that wasn't called a QB, a lot of teams would roster a 3rd string Canadian or Global QB because they don't take up a DI. All it would cost is the worst Canadian or Global player on the roster and that's way less of a downside than needing a QB and having to use a receiver or DB.

Using Streveler as an example. We sign him and put him in as the 3rd QB/DI. Now he can play at the same time as Collaros & he can play QB/RB/Receiver. We could even start him at one of those spots and keep the DI designation for some other player. All of that is completely against Article 5.

Using Rourke as an example. As a Canadian, you could roster him as the 3rd sting QB without giving up a DI spot & he could play any position & he could be on the field at the same time as Reilly & he'd be on the roster as a Canadian instead of as a QB. This is obviously not the intent of the rules.

Logic and CFL rules don't necessarily go hand in hand. The Canadian player rules for example. 

Personally, I don't think that QB's should be a separate designation. The rules should be x Canadians, y Americans and z Globals. Let QB's play any position & let more than one of them be on the field if the coaches choose to, but all of that is against Article 5.

 

 

 

None of this is as contradictory as you make it seem IMO. You sign a guy as a QB he has to play QB, OK but what stops you from putting a 3rd QB on the roster at the expense of a DI? He is just on the roster to stand around in case you need him. It costs you a DI though and DIs are very important to teams these days. Or you use a Canadian QB and it costs you a special teams player and potential depth at other positions. 

 

Now let's say you sign Streveler as a running back for example, now you can put him on the roster with anyone... but I bet the CFL would create a rule to prevent things like that from happening. 

[TBURGESS]

49 minutes ago, coach17 said:

I think you only have to look as far as what happened in Ottawa this year when both designated QB's were injured and a non designated QB came in to play. Pretty sure this ends the argument.

Any player can play QB, RB's and Receivers can take direct snaps too, but that's not the same thing as rostering a 3rd QB. QB's have special rules as I've quoted.

If a Canadian QB is a Canadian when he starts and a Canadian if he's rostered as a 3rd string QB, why would any team ever roster a Canadian QB as QB2? Roster an American QB as QB2 and the Canadian QB2 as an OL or any other position so his passport matters. If QB1 goes down, just use OL designated Canuck QB. One QB could hold the other be the 3rd down QB.

[TBURGESS]

55 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

None of this is as contradictory as you make it seem IMO. You sign a guy as a QB he has to play QB, OK but what stops you from putting a 3rd QB on the roster at the expense of a DI? He is just on the roster to stand around in case you need him. It costs you a DI though and DIs are very important to teams these days. Or you use a Canadian QB and it costs you a special teams player and potential depth at other positions.

Now let's say you sign Streveler as a running back for example, now you can put him on the roster with anyone... but I bet the CFL would create a rule to prevent things like that from happening. 

A 3rd string QB would be signed as a QB and only 2 QB's are allowed on the roster at one time. Therefore, you can't roster him as a QB. If you could sign him as an OL, you could roster him, his passport would matter, and he could play QB, but then why would you ever sign a #3 QB as a QB?

[Brandon]

You know what sounds easier and makes more sense and what had worked for many years.... having 3 qbs on a gameday roster....

[Jpan85]

How was Bennett allowed to play SP teams a few years back.
 

Also all NFL teams dress 2 QBs, BC was doing this before rule came out too.

[SpeedFlex27]

13 hours ago, bearpants said:

it was embarrassing to the league that BC had to put Reilly back in the game when they were getting stomped by the Bombers... would've been a good chance for a rookie to get some time in...

Whose bright idea was that to get rid of the third qb???