Template talk:Saskatchewan Roughriders roster

Numerical Roster/Depth Chart

For the sake of continuity with the rest of the CFL roster templates, all players should be listed numerically. Since the depth chart changes almost minute by minute, it would be impossible to track changes as they happen. So please leave the players sorted by uniform number and not by possible starting/backup roles. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this is causing an issue right now, I'll object to the use of this. Also, the original statement said that sorting by uniform numbers was the norm which it no longer is.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What criteria would you suggest as an alternative? Any criteria which can be applied consistently makes sense to me. A theoretical depth chart order though is, as pointed out before, silly. --Real Deuce (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Correcting sort assuming an alpha sort by last name. While sorting by number makes more sense (to me), I'll do this until more people weigh in. --Real Deuce (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Graham Harrell

As of 06/16/09, Graham Harrell is not on the Roughriders roster as shown by the CFL on their site [www.cfl.ca] or the riders on theirs [www.riderville.com] none of the official sources list him as having signed (just having agreed to terms) and he has not been listed as a transaction yet. There is no doubt that at this time he WILL be on the roster, but there is no solid evidence that he currently is. On Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the person who adds information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Real Deuce (talk • contribs) 01:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

While I get that, there's no doubt both sides have confirmed every hurdle has been jumped. So, let it be. And you're edit summary not every roster player has a number, he'll be assigned one when he shows up.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem saying on his article that he has signed or agreed to terms or whatever but I agree that there is a problem adding him to the active roster until he's actually added. Especially considering that CFL teams are not permitted more than 3 QBs dressed. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I originally put him on the reserve list but Shootmaster44 moved him to active. I just moved him to inactive.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the NFL isn't in its 30-day roster cut-down period, so I don't think that Harrell can be added to any of the rosters unless someone else is removed. Trying to find out where the CFL rules are regarding players who are under contract but not on a roster are, as well as exactly what the "inactive" roster is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Real Deuce (talk • contribs) 02:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Harrell's never been on an NFL team, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The CFL allows the teams practice roster to expand to 12 players (from the normal 7) during the 30 days of the NFL's roster cut-down period. This allows CFL teams to evaluate players cut from the NFL without requiring a change to the current practice roster. --Real Deuce (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Harrell?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is zero chance that Harrell will be placed on the active roster in the next week. The odds against him being placed on the reserve roster are astronimical. That leaves two places he can go... the practice roster and the "inactive" roster. If we were during the 30 day NFL cut-down period, the odds would be great that he would go on the practice roster. Since we are not, it is unlikely. Basically, that affects which roster Harrell will go on. --Real Deuce (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I only moved him to the active roster, since he is not on the reserve list. But he is indeed signed by the Riders as per [1]. My basic rule of thumb for players is to add them, so long as the info comes from a reliable source. The only somewhat shaky source I do use is Rod Pedersen's (Riders' radio PBP guy) blog [2], but if the Leader-Post/StarPhoenix reports it then I take it to mean notable.

Those two sources only say they have agreed to terms, not that he has signed. I assume you mean INactive roster though.  :-) When I first looked at this, he was the 43rd person on the active roster. --Real Deuce (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think a good policy would be to follow the official transactions page on the CFL website. I think it's official when posted. Regardless, there is no doubt that Graham will show up soon. --Real Deuce (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The roster rules are in the CBA. It used to be published on the CFLPA website but last I looked it wasn't there anymore. The Inactive list is not a CFL rule; just a catch-all here of players under contract but not on the Active list like Injured and Suspended. The first reliable source for being on the roster will do. The CFL.ca page is occasionally first but usually not. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Real Deuce, I use that too but you have to remember that's sometimes slower, TSN and others sometimes report stuff hours before the transactions page puts it up since it updates one time a day.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no obligation to wait for the CFL to publish transactions. Our only burden is to make sure an edit passes WP:VERIFY, not that it is 100% true and official.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, now that he's on the inactive roster, It's all fine by me (as above). There is no suggestion that he'll be put on the active roster any time soon though. --Real Deuce (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)