2025-2026 Offseason thread

[Esks4ever]

It’s clearly time to cut our losses and move on from Ford , otherwise as long as he is here he will always be causing divide of our fan base ,to me he seems not to be a full team player , he is loaded with athletic talent but just not at qb in my honest opinion

you've mentioned this a few hundred times already IF and thats a big IF Ford made it clear he didn't want to go in for a series here and there then fine we should move on. But that is also just speculation.

[Esks4ever]

I think lack of playing time for Ford had a lot more to do with the Elks overall situation than Ford himself. EE was lagging at 1-4 under Ford with the lone win being vs Ottawa and the 4 losses being by 10 to 18 points. With Fajardo at the helm they got back into the playoff hunt not being eliminated until Week 19. Over that stretch 4 of the 5 losses were by 4 or less. Only the Labour Day Classic was somewhat lopsided at 28-7 but that was still a two-score game until less than 10 minutes remained. When you're playing for your playoff lives every series counts.

Realistically it wasn't until the final 2 games that there was opportunity to play Ford. At that point they were 6-3 in their previous 9. Even though they had been eliminated there was still a very important need to continue selling a message of hope to their fanbase for 2026. Quite possibly Kilam and Hervey also needed to send an equally important message to Fajardo that he is THE guy for the looming contract extension talks.

I am curious to know how ford would have faired later in the season - when the D finally got their **** together. Even with Cody playing at the beginning - with how bad the D was playing it wouldn't have mattered.

[BeaverSports]

I think lack of playing time for Ford had a lot more to do with the Elks overall situation than Ford himself. .

Maybe, but some games surely got out of reach. Also, when you have a running threat like he is, you’d almost think it might make sense using him in short yardage (though I know he’s not big) if not some gadget, offbeat stuff. Sort of bizarre, I think, that he didn’t get in.

[Hammer24]

Maybe, but some games surely got out of reach. Also, when you have a running threat like he is, you’d almost think it might make sense using him in short yardage (though I know he’s not big) if not some gadget, offbeat stuff. Sort of bizarre, I think, that he didn’t get in.

The only game that was arguably out of reach under Fajardo until they were officially eliminated was the LDC. Stamps won by 21. However that was a one-score game until part way thru the 3rd and didn't become a three-score game until less than 10 to go in the 4th. I guess if one is of the belief a 21 point lead with 10 to go is totally insurmountable in the CFL then that was an opportunity. One of the endearing things CFL aficionados cling to is leads like that are anything but insurmountable even with half that amount of time left.

Elks margins with Fajardo:
L-3
L-4
W-1
W-8
W-10
L-21
W-12
L-1
L-2
W-2
W-5
L-13
L-10

Last 2 games were after playoff elimination. Aside from them every possession in the previous 11 games mattered. Where do you think would be a good time to pull QB1 to give QB2 a few reps? Winnipeg has liked to do that sort of thing with Streveler but if one notices they would put him in for short yardage. Then they'd leave him in to quickly run a play or two before the opponent has a chance to swap out their short yardage D for regular D.

[ben_the_eskimo]

The only game that was arguably out of reach under Fajardo until they were officially eliminated was the LDC. Stamps won by 21. However that was a one-score game until part way thru the 3rd and didn't become a three-score game until less than 10 to go in the 4th. I guess if one is of the belief a 21 point lead with 10 to go is totally insurmountable in the CFL then that was an opportunity. One of the endearing things CFL aficionados cling to is leads like that are anything but insurmountable even with half that amount of time left.

Elks margins with Fajardo:
L-3
L-4
W-1
W-8
W-10
L-21
W-12
L-1
L-2
W-2
W-5
L-13
L-10

Last 2 games were after playoff elimination. Aside from them every possession in the previous 11 games mattered. Where do you think would be a good time to pull QB1 to give QB2 a few reps? Winnipeg has liked to do that sort of thing with Streveler but if one notices they would put him in for short yardage. Then they'd leave him in to quickly run a play or two before the opponent has a chance to swap out their short yardage D for regular D.

I love that, just good coaching because you gain the advantage by not allowing the D to sub out of their jumbo package. That would have been a great way to work Ford in occasionally.

Same with the reverse where you leave your QB1 in on 3rd down and go tempo on the sneak forcing the D to stop you on 3rd and short without being able to sub in reinforcements.

That strategy creates mismatches that favour your offence and I’ll never understand why coaches don’t do it more often.

[dealerd]

you've mentioned this a few hundred times already IF and thats a big IF Ford made it clear he didn't want to go in for a series here and there then fine we should move on. But that is also just speculation.

You are correct , but I’m really getting sick and tired of this “qb controversy “ and that is the only solution to end it , just move on and he deserves a fresh start

[Looner]

I don't think one can simplify it down to a per hour figure because there's such a wide array of things players do in the community. Obviously the value behind having the star QB provide their time and effort for an event or is far greater than if a depth player did the same. No idea what sort of programs the Elks promote. Lions have their signature school programs. Many are held in the Lower Mainland but they are also put on literally all over the province. The players who speak in these things have to spend time learning the content and believe in the message. For those doing them away from the Vancouver area they have to be committed to being on the road for 3 or 4 days per out of town trip.

IMO this concept is about encouraging teams to actually spend money on marketing by getting the impact players involved AND compensating them more than meal and gas money to participate. For a league long accused of failing to market itself and its players this is long overdue. In the past all they could hope for is willing volunteers who more often than not were the lesser lights on the team who just happened to life full time in the market. Full marks to those who willingly helped out. Seems to me years ago the CBA allowed players to receive a max of $2000 for community efforts.

We'll just have to see what the audit produces to see if anybody has failed to live up to the spirit of the CBA.

Fully agree, our players head up north to the indigenous communities regularly. I'm not saying that Rourke isn't earning his marketing money, nor am I saying that the Lions are taking advantage of it but anytime you have a loop hole, someone will stretch the limit on it and I'm just curious how the audit process works and what they look for.

I also suspect that Nick Anderson has a decent amount of marketing money in his contract as he is the D coordinator for the varsity EE selects, which practices/film studies for 4 hours every Saturday and Sunday from the beginning of September to the end of February to prep for a tournament in Moosejaw and Monterrey.

[bone]

I think lack of playing time for Ford had a lot more to do with the Elks overall situation than Ford himself. EE was lagging at 1-4 under Ford with the lone win being vs Ottawa and the 4 losses being by 10 to 18 points. With Fajardo at the helm they got back into the playoff hunt not being eliminated until Week 19. Over that stretch 4 of the 5 losses were by 4 or less. Only the Labour Day Classic was somewhat lopsided at 28-7 but that was still a two-score game until less than 10 minutes remained. When you're playing for your playoff lives every series counts.

Realistically it wasn't until the final 2 games that there was opportunity to play Ford. At that point they were 6-3 in their previous 9. Even though they had been eliminated there was still a very important need to continue selling a message of hope to their fanbase for 2026. Quite possibly Kilam and Hervey also needed to send an equally important message to Fajardo that he is THE guy for the looming contract extension talks.

I get that, but it still is a weak argument about their deployment in the final 2 games. I could buy the idea that they wanted to get CF 51% of the reps to pay him the bonus money to build his trust in sticking around but they didn't give a single snap to any of their other QBs. You want to sell hope for the future? Give some reps in those meaningless games, if not to Ford, Snyder or whoever else they would choose to dress. But I think Killam was obsessed with trying to weaken Calgary's position in the last game and wasn't focussed enough on the long term for the Elks.

[ben_the_eskimo]

You are correct , but I’m really getting sick and tired of this “qb controversy “ and that is the only solution to end it , just move on and he deserves a fresh start

There’s no controversy, I think pretty much everybody that pays attention agrees Cody should be the starter. But choosing weaken your team while also throwing away an asset in the process is bad management, and I’m saying that as a huge Hervey fan. I think the fact that Ford hasn’t been cut already is evidence that Ed knows that, but he’s stuck because he also knows his HC doesn’t want him.

[Sectionq]

It’s pretty simple. This team needs a QB2, preferably one that is in that 3-4 year range in experience so that you’re not stuck with a brand new guy in the event of an injury to Cody, but you’re also not wasting potential development time by having and older backup like MBT.

So when you look around the league at all the potential candidates that fit that bill who also might be available, Ford is clearly the one with the most production out of that group. His past history here aside, he is simply the best prospect available to be our backup at this time when you hold up his body of work so far to that of his comparators.

The only one you might be able to point to is Powell but whether his ceiling is any higher than Fords is a coin flip at best based on what they’ve both shown so far. After that, any one of the leagues other current backups that you bring in is a clear downgrade on paper period.

I know Kilam has soured on him for whatever reason and that’s probably gonna force Eds hand, but swapping Ford out for one of the other teams backups currently available objectively makes our football team worse and that concerns me.

If the next Mike Reilly was sitting out there somewhere ready to take his shot I’d be all for it, but there’s not. So for me, just from an asset management standpoint, if you can’t find a way to upgrade what you already have in Ford then you retain him until you can, especially given that his current contract makes him un-tradable.

So if they choose to move on from Ford they’ll be losing an asset they’ve invested four years into for nothing, only to replace him with a downgrade, that only hurts the club and makes zero sense.

Maybe Ed will surprise us and pull a rabbit out of a hat at QB but at this point, there’s no clear path to being able to definitively say that our QB room is stronger without Tre in it.

Giving the coach a player in a position as important as the back up QB that the coach has identified as not wanting, is not how you build a winning team. That's crazy to me. The new Pres literally said when he was hired that he has to get the entire organization on the same page. That has to include the GM and coach being on the same page player wise.

[Hammer24]

Perhaps there was a sense they needed to show Fajardo he would be THE guy after 2025. They'd still need to re-sign him. He'd already been pushed out the door by two other clubs in the previous three seasons after performing well. Playing Ford or Snyder vs continuing with Fajardo the final 2 games may have served to have Fajardo question his standing. What if they played well? Both are under contract for 2026 and he wasn't. Would he question what the Elks' intentions really were or undermine his bargaining leverage for contract value?

[bone]

Perhaps there was a sense they needed to show Fajardo he would be THE guy after 2025. They'd still need to re-sign him. He'd already been pushed out the door by two other clubs in the previous three seasons after performing well. Playing Ford or Snyder vs continuing with Fajardo the final 2 games may have served to have Fajardo question his standing. What if they played well? Both are under contract for 2026 and he wasn't. Would he question what the Elks' intentions really were or undermine his bargaining leverage for contract value?

I definitely see that angle if it had been Ford, because Ford coming in and finding success could have got the fans talking about Ford vs. Fajardo again.

Had it been a few series of Snyder or another, I don't think there would have been much verbal one way or the other and it would only have been viewed as development time
.

[adb]

I definitely see that angle if it had been Ford, because Ford coming in and finding success could have got the fans talking about Ford vs. Fajardo again.

Had it been a few series of Snyder or another, I don't think there would have been much verbal one way or the other and it would only have been viewed as development time
.

Playing Ford in the final game would have sent a clear message that he was still being considered as being in their plans. The fact that he wasn't sent a clear message to everyone involved and that is that Tre is moving on. Hopefully we can land Powell or Crum in that QB2 spot. If Fajardo gets hurt for a lengthy amount of time it'll get real ugly real fast around here if we are forced to go with either of the other 2 guys we have under contract for a significant portion of the season.

[Looner]

Perhaps there was a sense they needed to show Fajardo he would be THE guy after 2025. They'd still need to re-sign him. He'd already been pushed out the door by two other clubs in the previous three seasons after performing well. Playing Ford or Snyder vs continuing with Fajardo the final 2 games may have served to have Fajardo question his standing. What if they played well? Both are under contract for 2026 and he wasn't. Would he question what the Elks' intentions really were or undermine his bargaining leverage for contract value?

Fair points, also we don't know what the incentives were for either QB, is it possible that Ford had play time incentives that they were wanting to avoid? Possible

[Looner]

Playing Ford in the final game would have sent a clear message that he was still being considered as being in their plans. The fact that he wasn't sent a clear message to everyone involved and that is that Tre is moving on. Hopefully we can land Powell or Crum in that QB2 spot. If Fajardo gets hurt for a lengthy amount of time it'll get real ugly real fast around here if we are forced to go with either of the other 2 guys we have under contract for a significant portion of the season.

We could always take a page out of the NFL playbook and bring back 46 year old Ricky Ray