While watching the game at the tavern I got to thinking,  when Harris is healthy would you keep flanders in the back field and move harris to a receiver spot? you could have a lot of misdirection with the duel threat they are

 

no Harris is a good ******* running back that does so many things for the offense in the backfield. Just because stupid sexy flanders is a good injury replacement doesn't mean we cater to him over our star runningback. 

I wasnt thinking of it as catering to flanders so much as putting your best weapons out there. If you had to juggle the roster id say harris for jfg or kohlert could work with that added duel running threat. Harris can certainly be a 10 yard possession receiver that either of those 2 ni's are when needed

Edited September 25, 20168 yr by Taynted_Fayth

27 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

I wasnt thinking of it as catering to flanders so much as putting your best weapons out there. If you had to juggle the roster id say harris for jfg or kohlert could work with that added duel running threat. Harris can certainly be a 10 yard possession receiver that either of those 2 ni's are when needed

so instead of a versatile star rb we just make him a 10 yard possession receiver? Seems like a complete and total waste of talent. 

Not what im necessarily trying to say. Ultimately the benefit would have harris and flanders in the back field at any givin time that defenses would have to respect. However for roster purposes if you slot harris in for jfg or kohlert, harris is more then capable to fill that roll to when needed

That's a good problem to have. However Harris brings a different dimension to the running game, better blocker, receiver and tougher extra yards runner. Flanders is more of an elusive slasher type. If I were Lapo I'd be designing some winged T sets so that I could get both in at the same time. It is fall and having a strong running attack down the stretch is going to be critical. I would be sitting Richards and DI Mcguffie when he's healthy. Just my two cents.

 

No

I get what you're saying. I agree that Harris would actually be a better Cdn receive than Kohlert who has been underperforming all year. Regardless, when we're back to one Cdn receiver is like to see JFG starting over Kohlert. He's been great in his limited oppprtunities (showed that again yesterday). 

I think you find a way to get them both on the roster and give yourself more options, in terms of having them both out there or spelling each other.  I don't think Harris makes it to the end of the season otherwise.  That comes at the cost of one of the import LBs who had mostly been used to cover kicks.

If we did that Harris would be outraged & want out. And the move would make little sense  as he'd be wasted in Kohlert's spot at Boundary wideout..

I definitely like the idea of dressing both of them and think it could be effective to occasionally line up Harris as a receiver with Flanders at runningback, just to switch things up.  But I see it as an infrequent twist rather than a consistent formation. 

4 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I definitely like the idea of dressing both of them and think it could be effective to occasionally line up Harris as a receiver with Flanders at runningback, just to switch things up.  But I see it as an infrequent twist rather than a consistent formation. 

Flanders showed pretty good hands yesterday as well. A nice problem to have.

I'm shocked the Riders or Redblacks never attempted to poach Flanders off of our PR.

2 hours ago, Blueandgold said:

I'm shocked the Riders or Redblacks never attempted to poach Flanders off of our PR.

Just wait. Flanders opened a lot of eyes with his performance in that game and is now a known commodity.

The only down side I see is that we won't be able to put Flanders on the PR anymore. Some team is likely to pluck him, especially Jones who doesn't care about the real rules let alone the gentleman's agreements.

10 hours ago, 17to85 said:

no Harris is a good ******* running back that does so many things for the offense in the backfield. Just because stupid sexy flanders is a good injury replacement doesn't mean we cater to him over our star runningback. 

we wouldnt use him over harris.

We dress him as a DI or even start him in place of a ni wr. How? Harris comes back and gives us the extra starting canadian. We play 2 back sets and motion / line one of them up at slot some times.

We even have it set up in our offense, the smith/dressler/mcduffie package has us motioning slots into the back field even snapping with wrs in a te/h-back spot. We just use flanders or harris in that spot. I would lean towards harris being the primary back and flanders being the motion back as he is a better pass blocker. The NI wrs are a blind spot 99% of the time in our offense any way. 

Plop was even coaching here when we had sellers/blink doing the same type of two back offense with lots of screens and releases to both.

I dont think thats the type of offense mos wants though so I dont see it happening. Even though it would dramatically improve our offense and even fit with our offensive play style.

47 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The only down side I see is that we won't be able to put Flanders on the PR anymore. Some team is likely to pluck him, especially Jones who doesn't care about the real rules let alone the gentleman's agreements.

No but we could continually put him on the 2 game reserve. If i was any team with struggles at RB I would ****** him in a second. 

So much wrong with this that i have no idea where to start....

Don't get me wrong, Flanders has done well as a backup to Harris. Thing is, he's just that - a backup.

That 6.6 average is pretty nice though 

1 hour ago, Eternal optimist said:

Don't get me wrong, Flanders has done well as a backup to Harris. Thing is, he's just that - a backup.

Once upon a time we had a 3rd string RB who backed up Eric blount and troy mills. A guy named charles roberts. Every one in the cfl is a back up until they arent. And the last two weeks, flanders hasnt been a back up. 

Edited September 27, 20168 yr by wbbfan

16 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

Once upon a time we had a 3rd string RB who backed up Eric blount and troy mills. A guy named charles roberts. Every one in the cfl is a back up until they arent. And the last two weeks, flanders hasnt been a back up. 

Fair point. Maybe someday Flanders will be the successor to Andrew Harris... however with respect to the topic of this thread - the starting RB position goes to Harris, assuming he can play.

Just now, Eternal optimist said:

Fair point. Maybe someday Flanders will be the successor to Andrew Harris... however with respect to the topic of this thread - the starting RB position goes to Harris, assuming he can play.

Maybe, i have a hard time seeing it though. He would start on probably 3 other teams in the cfl right now maybe 4. If we dont make it work with 2 backs I think hes gonna be gone before long one way or a another. 

48 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

Maybe, i have a hard time seeing it though. He would start on probably 3 other teams in the cfl right now maybe 4. If we dont make it work with 2 backs I think hes gonna be gone before long one way or a another. 

But why would he be gone?  Doesn't he have a 2 year deal with us?  

 

17 minutes ago, Brandon said:

But why would he be gone?  Doesn't he have a 2 year deal with us?  

 

idk about his contract status, but we cant keep him on the 2man IR forever, and i for one never expect players who are healthy and hot to willingly sit on the IR long term waiting for a chance. especially if its a guy that would be gone quickly after hitting the PR.