2016 season review and 2016/17 offseason

[B.C.FAN]

Blitz, you make a compelling case. The lack of energy from the Lions was apparent from the opening kickoff when Finch bounced off Fenner and returned the ball to the Calgary 53. The Stamps won the line of scrimmage all day. They stuffed the second-down rushing plays that the Lions had relied on all year. Calgary's offence rushed for 166 yards, more than double the Lions' output and by far their best production in their four games against the Lions. For whatever reason, players and coaches on both sides said the Lions showed little energy and Calgary players had more "legs." The B.C. offence was predictable but had been reliable on second down all year. You can't win many games when you lose the line of scrimmage.

While lack of second-down production hurt the Lions, four plays killed them. And those were problems of execution.

1. On the third play of the game, Stewart let McDaniel get behind him in man coverage on the corner. Stewart took a pass-interference penalty on the 3-yard line. Calgary scored on the next play to make it 8-0 before the B.C. offence got on the field.

2. After B.C. stopped Calgary on their next two possessions, McDaniel got behind Edem in zone coverage for a 32-yard touchdown. The safety should never be caught flat-footed like that. That made it 15-0 before the Lions got the ball in the second quarter.

3. After another defensive stop by the Lions, Daniels got behind Stewart on a double move in man coverage on the corner. He romped into the end zone for a 76-yard TD to make it 22-0. That's another mistake that a veteran like Stewart should never make. This game reminded me of the 2012 WF, when Calgary picked on another veteran cornerback at the end of his career, Byron Parker for two deep TD passes that buried the Lions in a hole from which they couldn't escape.

4. With 29 seconds left in the half and the Lions needing to get to the locker room to regroup, Wall jumped a a long outlet pass to Iannuzzi that should never have been thrown and returned it 42 yards for a TD to make it 32-0. Game over.

The Lions had come back from second-half deficits all year but they buried themselves too deep this time, with four blown plays accounting for 29 first-half Calgary points. Big plays allowed by the defence and turnovers were the Lions' biggest weakness all year. The Stamps exploited the Lions' weaknesses and capitalized on every opportunity, just as they did in 2012. It was a disappointing way to end the year.

[WestCoastJoe]

Excellent detail, Blitz. I am glad you have the passion and courage to draw it up and to post it. It ain't necessarily easy to go against a legend. But of course, it will not matter. Methinks we will see pretty much the same philosophy of D and O in 2017. The coordinators will deliver what Wally wants.

Next year will be Year 15 of Wally's time here. 15 years. Two titles as of now. 2006. 2011.

12 and 6 (13 and 7) looks pretty good in the rear view mirror. But a lot of those victories were comebacks. Against the odds. We might not get all of those next year.

I agree that fussing with the lineup, with personnel, will occupy the staff, and the fans. But the systems will stay the same. They will not be dynamic.

It was a year with its share of satisfaction. Comeback wins might be against the odds, but they bring excitement and a rush of dopamine. LOL We had lots of that this year. Jennings. Manny. Burnie. Rainey. JJ24.

Wally acknowledged that Calgary was atop the league. This fan thinks he was not saying it was due to coaching. More to execution. How to catch up next year? More to making a limited number of personnel changes. And definitely not to changing any of the systems he prefers. This fan does not think the blowout loss to Calgary was due to inferior personnel. We were outcoached. Sophisticated game planning did us in. They prepared to attack what the film showed we would do. We did those things. They stuffed our O. They attacked our soft zone in the seams. Our game planning cooperated.

This fan believes more in the Lion players than in the coaching. Other fans have more loyalty to Wally. One can point to execution. It is possible to have great game planning but poor execution. Old school game planning (head in the sand, even stubborn, in my view) puts your team at an extreme disadvantage. This fan acknowledges the two Grey Cups, and many exciting wins. But this fan has kind of a forlorn hope that we would make an attitude adjustment, an adjustment in philosophy, and play the modern Xs and Os game, along with playing the old school execution game.

The reporters know what it is like to challenge Wally. They get ripped. I expect many fans feel the same way. Fans might not get ripped by Wally, but they might get ripped by other fans, who are more loyal to Wally. Hate Wally? Nah. But things could be better. With just some modifications in approach. We could be at Calgary's level. On his return Wally said he wanted to win another Grey Cup. Is that an attainable goal without adjusting to the kind of game planning Calgary does, and that other teams are doing, especially in key games? Once again I look at the progression of our games vs Calgary. We win game 1. We blow a lead in game 2 and lose in overtime. We get blown out in game 3. We get blown out in game 4, in the playoffs. Inferior personnel to blame? Not in my view. Execution to blame? Not in my view. I would put it on game planning and preparation by the coaching staff.

Just IMO, as a longtime CFL fan. Others see it differently.

[SammyGreene]

There were a couple of other juicy tidbits that came from Wally on Tuesday that was included in LU's story and in audio as well.

From LU:

General manager: Next year will be Buono’s last in the CFL and so additional signs the Lions are ready for his retirement must be considered.

His contract expires at the end of the 2017 season and Wally will be a couple of months away from turning 68 then. There has been nothing official but obviously he has mentioned something to LU that he will indeed be completely retiring from the CFL.
So the Lions are essentially about 12 months away from having to name a new GM and head coach. Geroy or McElvoy for GM? How about pull what the Riders did and offer both jobs to Dickenson to see if he would bolt the Stampeders? Doubt it but who knows. Does Wally hand pick his successors as his last official duty? Big big changes on the horizon.

Wally also said contract extensions were offered to some pending free agents during the season and they were turned down at the time. Interesting. He usually does well with that strategy. Of course no names were mentioned.

[maxlion]

http://www.si.com/vault/1982/07/26/6246 ... -and-amaze

One of the coaches to bring more sophistication and detailed planning to the game, with success, was Bill Walsh. This quote is from 1982. Still relevant. And IMO old school can still work, but I think it needs to take full advantage of deception and attacks on even minute vulnerabilities also.

NFL. CFL. It's all football. And it's all relevant, IMO. Great coaches and players in both leagues. As it happens, this fan much prefers the CFL, and no doubt, on into the future. To my mind, this quote captures the difference between old school philosophy and modern.

Asked whether it is fair to call coaching differences conflicting ideologies, he (Walsh) says, "In the Midwest, there's a philosophy or approach that people become students of, or parties to, personified by Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler, which is based on fundamentals and disciplined play. Individual ability isn't much of a factor. Not that players are clones, but parts of a unit that functions methodically. Certain precepts control it. In each situation here is what you do. It's a sound approach, and the drills and appearance and values are similar from school to school. It's predictable, but they feel comfortable with that. It's as if one side says, 'We know where you're going and we're going to stop you' and the other side says, 'We know you know, but no, you're not.' Success then is related to execution, to superior personnel. If you have the best players, you want to create a situation in which the best win, if only marginally. That's conservative football—siege warfare. The somberness and drudgery can be overstated, of course. Hayes is an intelligent and scholarly man with more feeling for his players than almost anyone I've met. The problem is when an Indiana, say, without the personnel, tries again and again to compete that way. I'm not sure that such schools take full advantage of the game's rules." -- Bill Walsh, as quoted by Kenny Moore, July 26, 1982

To me, I think you really hit the nail on the head with this post. Wally plays the percentages, which is how he keeps winning year after year--though of course not as often in the playoffs.

His stature as the longest career HC in the CFL plus being the CFL's winningest coach (he's also the losingest coach but that is never mentioned) demands respect.

This is a ridiculous argument, of course. His .646 career winning percentage does not put him in the equation of the "losingest" coach.

It will be Wally's Way in Wally's World, once again. And most fans seem content with that. Most importantly David Braley is content with that. Philosophy --> It seems very evident to this CFL fan that Wally's coordinators dial it up the way he wants it. Conservative. Basic. Old School. Khari and Mark W have mixed in some more sophisticated packages at times. With some success. And they have been quickly mothballed. Back to the basic. Back to same old, same old.

I'd suggest that our offense last year was the least conservative in the league. It was pretty dynamic, and based on making big plays on a regular basis. Personally, I would prefer a more conservative approach--shorter high percentage passes, march down the field, eat up the clock. But Jones was playing to our players abilities, which worked for much of the year. My impression is that Wally likes a high-powered, exciting brand of football. But, as you said, not too fancy.

Blitz, you make a compelling case. The lack of energy from the Lions was apparent from the opening kickoff when Finch bounced off Fenner and returned the ball to the Calgary 53. The Stamps won the line of scrimmage all day. They stuffed the second-down rushing plays that the Lions had relied on all year. Calgary's offence rushed for 166 yards, more than double the Lions' output and by far their best production in their four games against the Lions. For whatever reason, players and coaches on both sides said the Lions showed little energy and Calgary players had more "legs." The B.C. offence was predictable but had been reliable on second down all year. You can't win many games when you lose the line of scrimmage.

While lack of second-down production hurt the Lions, four plays killed them. And those were problems of execution.

Great post. Seems that "execution" is a dirty word around here when, in reality, it is one of the keys to winning football games. Execution, motivation, and planning.

Does Wally consistently throw his players under the bus? Does he never criticize his assistant coaches? Does he fail to take personal responsibility for the team? In my view, no to all.

Right now, Hufnagel/Dickenson are clearly the coaching/managing class of the league. We might be second best, but need to improve. Not sure that we can improve from within.

There were a couple of other juicy tidbits that came from Wally on Tuesday that was included in LU's story and in audio as well.

From LU:

General manager: Next year will be Buono’s last in the CFL and so additional signs the Lions are ready for his retirement must be considered.

His contract expires at the end of the 2017 season and Wally will be months away from turning 68 then. There has been nothing official but obviously he has mentioned something to LU that he will indeed be completely retiring from the CFL.
So the Lions are essentially about 12 months away from having to name a new GM and head coach. Geroy or McElvoy for GM? How about pull what the Riders did and offer both jobs to Dickenson to see if he would bolt the Stampeders? Doubt it but who knows. Does Wally hand pick his successors as his last official duty? Big big changes on the horizon.

The problem is that the 3 old men are still running the show--Braley, Skulsky, and Buono. First thing that needs to happen is for Braley to sell. The new owner will hire a new president, the new pres a new gm, and the new gm a new coach. What coach or gm would want to come here now, when we don't know who the owner will be in a year?

[WestCoastJoe]

Good post, max.

Did Calgary have a good game plan? Most agree that they did. Did they execute? Yup. Were they confident? Yup. Did they cause confusion? Yup.

Did we have a good game plan? I don't think so. Did we execute? Nope. Were we confident? Nope. Did we keep Calgary off balance with different sets? The timing of calls? Did we attack on defence? Not in my view. Did we have a plan on offence to create space for our receivers, to get defenders in chase position? Not that I saw. Did it look like Calgary knew what we would do on offence and defence? I think so.

If Ottawa makes the game close, I would suggest that they were very well prepared.

For this fan it comes down to philosophy, as I have stated numerous times. This fan thinks Wally does not like deception. He wants basic plays. This fan thinks he is of the Woody Hayes approach, the Bo Schembechler approach. You will not stop us. And we will stop you. That is a philosophy of execution rather than sophisticated game planning. And this fan thinks we put ourselves at a disadvantage in not using all that is possible with detailed, fresh game planning. All it takes is an adjustment in attitude and approach, but I doubt we will see it. I fully believe Khari and Mark are capable of doing it, if we wanted to. Wally will stay with what got him his place in CFL history, mostly good, with many missed opportunities.

We got blown out by Calgary. This fan thinks our basic game plan did us in, preventing our players from having a chance to execute.

The discussion can go round and round.

Just IMO ...

[Gridiron Ernie]

In a '3 Down Nation' article by Dan Ralph posted recently (Nov 23rd), he quotes Dave Dickenson saying,

“I have a philosophy that coaches can help but you’re really at the mercy of players,” Dickenson said. “Players win and lose games (but) coaches can screw it up as well.

“I think we give (players) a little bit of help and tips but it’s still the players’ game and we put a lot of faith and trust in them. You have to have the right guys, it’s a lot about personalities.”

That seems like a fair balance/perspective to me. Perhaps DD's in part being humble, and politely underplaying things a bit about coaches' importance, but I thought it was an interesting and believable comment, and one that in my mind ties in with the discussion here in this thread (wonderfully passionate and insightful from all angles from all you sincere Lionbackers.) So interesting to read and consider all your articulations throughout this past season. Thanks to you. And thanks to the BC Lions -- the whole works of 'em -- players, coaches, et al. Over 60-plus years and counting for me, of loving 'orange' and the men and women who wear it. Personalities come and go over the course of a life and a franchise. Wally is a complicated one for me. There's much to admire about him, and yet often some things that rub the wrong way a a wee bit. I can get as exasperated as the next guy, and wish for adaptations and change. And then I remind myself he did change this year regards his stated more flexible open-minded approach to dealing with the young men that play for him. So, perhaps there's reason for hoping this could spill over into other facets of his role as coach. I'm going with that thought for now, although some might think me foolish to do so. Cheers.

[Blitz]

Blitz, you make a compelling case. The lack of energy from the Lions was apparent from the opening kickoff when Finch bounced off Fenner and returned the ball to the Calgary 53. The Stamps won the line of scrimmage all day. They stuffed the second-down rushing plays that the Lions had relied on all year. B.C. Fan

There were three major reasons why we played such a terrible first half against Calgary, giving up 32 points and putting up 0 points. The first reason was the 'energy level', but we came out flat too in the Semi-Final against Winnipeg and many Buono coached teain ms have come out flat in the playoffs. Its why I wrote that a team is often a reflection of their coach and before the WDF, I wrote that it was important that Buono appear poised and confident, and not tense and short, with his players.

But Buono's teams in the playoffs have come out nervous, uptight, and mistake prone too often. Buono needs to get back to being more composed and confident before this big game. His players will sense that and perform better to start the game, instead of being all nervous and therefore lose focus

Players 'feel' a coach before a big game. I was worried about this and it turned out to be the case against Calgary as it was early against Winnipeg.

The second was just plain poor preparation and game planning. Our Leos not only beat Calgary early this season and then almost beat them in Calgary in the overtime loss. It begs the question "Why were they so dominant on both offence and defense over our Leos in the third regular season game and the WDF? Most of the players were still the same. Why was Winnipeg able to put up 25 points on us in the first half of the WDF?

West Coast Joe wrote:

Calgary will game plan vs our offence. Take away the main targets. Overplay. Blitz with good planning. Mix things up. Work to stuff the inside run. Pretty hard to stuff JJ24 and Rainey however. Pretty hard to stuff JJ on zone reads, QB draws and scrambles. Moving the pocket would be advantageous.An Xs and Os guy like Dickenson loves to do this kind of detailed game planning.

I wrote:

Calgary is not only scouting our defence but they are also self-scouting their offence to move away from tendencies. I highly doubt we self-scout. Calgary will lock the doors on Thursday’s closed practice so they can implement a few of those wrinkles in private.

We didn't scout Calgary well or self-scout ourselves well either. That was obvious. Lack of execution alone can't address those issues. Being outcoached and out-game planned has to be a significant part of the answer.

Even the players said it. Jennings talked about Calgary's game plan and our inability to combat it after the game. Dickenson said before the game, that both teams knew each other well and it would come down to the players and then introduced new formations and new plays in the WDF that we were unprepared for.

On offence, two plays that we liked to run on second down were shut down often in the latter half of the second half of the season - the inside zone read run and the telegraphed quick swing to Rainey.

That was why I wrote, before the WDF, that we should run the zone read option, faking to Jeremiah Johnson and Jennings keeping on second and short before the game and explained what defenses were doing on second and short to shut down the play.

If we would run the zone read option against Calgary early that a couple of times early, it will make the Stamps ends respect it, and open up our inside run.

It was also why I wrote that we should run the delay swing to Rainey, letting the receivers clear out the press man coverage first.

Khari Jones needs to PLEASE STOP using the quick swing pass to Rainey. Instead, he needs to use Rainey differently, using him on patterns and delays out of the backfield

The fact that both the inside zone read and the telegraphed swing pass to Rainey were both stuffed against Calgary could be expected. If I could see it, certainly Devon Claybrooks and the Calgary defence could see it on tape.

Jeremiah Johnson was stopped for a one yard loss on second and two and Rainey was stopped for 1 yard and minus 6 on the two first half swing passes we threw.

The third reason was a lack of execution. But coaching decisions were also a part of that execution. It was obvious to me and many colleague Lionbackers that Brandon Stewart was the weak link of our defence. So when you point out, B.C. Fan, that Stewart was burned twice in the first half, the question has to be asked: "Why was he out there in the first place".

A number of us had called for Anthony Parker to start in place of Stewart.

Before the WDF I wrote:

Parker would be starting at field corner over Brandon Stewart if it was my team..and not just for ratio reasons. Quite frankly Parker is better than Stewart.

If a nobody like me can see that, why can't Mark Washington. Why did it take most of the season for Washington to figure out Darius Allen was doing nothing for us as a rotational end. Why did it take him most of the season to make Bryant Turner Jr. a starting defensive tackle. Bryant Turner Jr. was our best defensive lineman, after being elevated to starter toward the end of the season. Many Lionbackers called for Turner to be starting much, much earlier in the season.

Finally, why did it require Jonathan Jennings and Travis Lulay to spend time after practice a few games back to show him how to change his angles at safety, which made a difference in his play, including his first interceptions of the season, when Washington is not only a former defensive back but is also our defensive backfield coach and defensive coordinator?

Edem got beat in this game, as B.C. Fan points out,and he's right - it was was an execution problem. But Edem is our starting safety at Washington's request. We signed Edem at Mark Washington's urging.

But he would not be our starting safety if it was up to me. One option for the second half of this season would have been to start Phillips at safety and use Parker at halfback, if Washington was determined to go with Stewart. A second option would have been using Purifoy at safety, Parker at boundary corner and Fenner at nickelback.

But the best option of all, would have been to start Purifoy at safety, Parker at field corner, and either Fenner or Thompson at nickelback.

Excellent detail, Blitz. I am glad you have the passion and courage to draw it up and to post it. It ain't necessarily easy to go against a legend. But of course, it will not matter. Me thinks we will see pretty much the same philosophy of D and O in 2017. The coordinators will deliver what Wally wants. Next year will be Year 15 of Wally's time here. 15 years. Two titles as of now. 2006. 2011.

The reporters know what it is like to challenge Wally. They get ripped. I expect many fans feel the same way. Fans might not get ripped by Wally, but they might get ripped by other fans.

Thanks for your kind words WCJ. Looks like its happening.

Blitz wrote:
His stature as the longest career HC in the CFL plus being the CFL's winningest coach (he's also the losingest coach but that is never mentioned) demands respect.

This is a ridiculous argument, of course. His .646 career winning percentage does not put him in the equation of the "losingest" coach. maxlion

maxlion, I think its ridiculous for writers and media to repeatedly refer to Buono as the CFL's winningest coach. Yes, he has won the most games as a coach in the CFL. Yes, he has also lost more games as a coach in the CFL. Both are due to longevity. If they referred to Buono's percentage record, as you noted or his longevity due to his successful won-lost record or his championships won, that would be different.

I'd suggest that our offense last year was the least conservative in the league. It was pretty dynamic, and based on making big plays on a regular basis. Personally, I would prefer a more conservative approach--shorter high percentage passes, march down the field, eat up the clock. But Jones was playing to our players abilities, which worked for much of the year. My impression is that Wally likes a high-powered, exciting brand of football. But, as you said, not too fancy. maxlion

I do, however, agree with your comment that we played an exciting brand of football, in terms of our passing game with big plays. That worked very well for a good chunk of the season. Our vertically designed passing attack combined with Jennings ability to throw very accurate deep and deep intermediate footballs, along with the talents of Manny and Burham gave us an explosive passing attack. But when defenses went Man/Cover 2, they took away our deep ball or made it dangerous to throw it.

That was when we needed to make adaptions. I don't think the complete answer was just to go with a more conservative, with shorter passes but that that would have helped. More so, I think that we could have been just as exciting adding more deep intermediate and short crossing patterns, against Man/Cover 2. That would have gotten our receivers away from the two deep safeties. Getting the football to a receiver, either deep intermediate or short (as you recommended) with crossing routes can be exciting too, if the receiver can get the defender in a bad chase position. The receiver can then turn the football upfield with lots of space to run.

Sinkfield (if he could catch the dam football at times), Rainey, Manny, Gore, and Burnham all have that ability. You use what works best. Single safety - attack it like we did earlier in the season. Man/Cover 2, to with a combination of the horizontal game and your recommended shorter passing game combined.

Our offence was not dynamic enough, in terms of strategy (mostly one running play and a vertical passing attack) but it was exciting (and dangerous due to the potential of interceptions) against Man/Cover 2

[maxlion]

Excellent detail, Blitz. I am glad you have the passion and courage to draw it up and to post it. It ain't necessarily easy to go against a legend. But of course, it will not matter. Me thinks we will see pretty much the same philosophy of D and O in 2017. The coordinators will deliver what Wally wants. Next year will be Year 15 of Wally's time here. 15 years. Two titles as of now. 2006. 2011.

The reporters know what it is like to challenge Wally. They get ripped. I expect many fans feel the same way. Fans might not get ripped by Wally, but they might get ripped by other fans.

Thanks for your kind words WCJ. Looks like its happening.

Blitz wrote:
His stature as the longest career HC in the CFL plus being the CFL's winningest coach (he's also the losingest coach but that is never mentioned) demands respect.

This is a ridiculous argument, of course. His .646 career winning percentage does not put him in the equation of the "losingest" coach. maxlion

maxlion, I think its ridiculous for writers and media to repeatedly refer to Buono as the CFL's winningest coach. Yes, he has won the most games as a coach in the CFL. Yes, he has also lost more games as a coach in the CFL. Both are due to longevity. If they referred to Buono's percentage record, as you noted or his longevity due to his successful won-lost record or his championships won, that would be different.

Well, "winningest" probably doesn't have a precise technical definition, but certainly has something to do with a strong win/loss record over an extended period of time. No doubt Wally would be in the running for "winningest" coach no matter how you define it. But to call a coach with an outstanding win/loss record over 22 years the "losingest" coach in history shows a clear bias against that coach.

As for 2 titles in 15 years...first of all, we haven't even finished this year, so it's probably not fair to include next year in the seasons total. Secondly, out of nine teams the even odds would be that each team would win every 9th year. Wally has won every 7th year. Hufnagel has won every 4th year, and may win again this year which would make it every 3rd year. But he would need to win two more times to match Wally career-wise. Of course, consistency counts as well. Wally has missed the playoffs only once in 22 years as a coach. Obviously Hufnagel will never match that total.

We can look around the league at other coaches, but I'd suggest that we shouldn't be too unhappy with the coach/gm we have. What has Austin, Milanovich, Popp, Jones done recently?

[TheLionKing]

Khari should also stop using those passes to the wide side of the field to Iannuzzi. Picked off at least 3 times by Calgary and Winnipeg.

[SammyGreene]

The problem is that the 3 old men are still running the show--Braley, Skulsky, and Buono. First thing that needs to happen is for Braley to sell. The new owner will hire a new president, the new pres a new gm, and the new gm a new coach. What coach or gm would want to come here now, when we don't know who the owner will be in a year?

Exactly Maxlion. You have to go back to 2001 prior to Bob Ackles arrival to find this much uncertainty regarding the club's future.

1. An owner who said in a Globe and Mail story a year ago the process to sell the club was underway (see link) but has been silence since other than the occasional conversation with News 1130's Rick Dhaliwal. The latest is he doesn't have any buyers lined up and won't be selling anytime soon.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/f ... e27345606/

2. A club president who resigned on April 1 of this year only to continue his duties on apparently an interim basis when Braley was hospitalized. Yet, Dennis Skulsky remains president, not only taking the club through the 2016 season but overseeing the 2017 season ticket campaign and pricing structure as well. This is with an eroding fan base when clearly new ideas are needed despite an exciting product on the field.

3. A general manager and head coach who has indicated 2017 will be his final season involved in the CFL before heading into well-deserved retirement at the age of 68. The new GM should be named sometime in next year but really the club president, GM and coach should be the responsibility of a potential new owner.

[The_Pauser]

Cutting Bighill? Letting Solly go? Cutting Olafioye? Bringing back McCallum to handle all kicking duties?

Uh.....absolutely not?

If we need to save money there are areas where we can do this. Firstly, I would probably let Westerman walk. I don't think he was all that impressive this year and has flatlined since his rookie season. I also would likely not bring back Nick Moore as Burnham would become my priority. JJ would be nice to re-sign, but if he wants more than the combined salary of him and Allen this year then it wouldn't exactly make sense to bring him back. Craig Roh is another player who I would look for an upgrade on in the free agent camps.

[B.C.FAN]

I've seen articles suggested Burnham and Steward could draw NFL interest as free agents. If Burnham signs with an NFL team, or even accepts free-agent tryout offers, re-signing Nick Moore becomes more of a priority. And if Steward leaves, the Lions will be hard pressed to start four nationals on the O-line.

[Blitz]

I've seen articles suggested Burnham and Steward could draw NFL interest as free agents. If Burnham signs with an NFL team, or even accepts free-agent tryout offers, re-signing Nick Moore becomes more of a priority. And if Steward leaves, the Lions will be hard pressed to start four nationals on the O-line.

We shoulda tried to sign Steward and Burnham before they became free agents.

DanoT » Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:52 am
I wonder if Wally even watched the Grey Cup game. If he did he would have found out that his "Here is what we do, try and stop us" doesn't work as well as a "First try to figure out what we are doing and by the time you do that we will have a big lead" game plan.

The surest path to success in playoffs and GC is to give the other team looks and formations that they haven't seen before or haven't seen since early in the season. Trying to confuse the opponent is not Wally's Way, but congrats to Rick Campbell for being a smart coach and figuring out how to beat Calgary

.

Nah Dano! The reason Ottawa won was because they 'executed' at a phenomenally higher level against Calgary yesterday than we 'executed' in the WDF.

Ottawa's offence racked up 534 yds of offence, including 461 yds. in the air because their offence 'executed' better than our offence did in the WDF. Ottawa's offence scored 26 first half points against Calgary in the Grey Cup and we scored 0 points in the first half of the Grey Cup because our offensive players somehow just didn't 'execute' in the first half against Calgary, while Ottawa did.

Defensively, Ottawa's players somehow had a higher level of 'execution' in the Grey Cup than our defensive players did in the WDF. Ottawa held Calgary to 7 first half points in the Grey Cup while our defense 'held' Calgary to 32 first half points.

Perhaps we should try to find out more about EXECUTION, in other words, what made Ottawa players execute at such a phenomenally higher level than our B.C. Lions did.

Perhaps its the pre-game meal? Maybe its sex or no sex before a game. Maybe its the beards? Many of Ottawa's offensive and defensive lineman sport beards. Gotta be a reason. We KNOW its not coaching. Now that wouldn't make sense, would it?

Ottawa's players also came out 'energized' on both sides of the football. Ottawa was energized in the snow too, against Edmonton in the Semi-Final. Our Leos, in both playoff games can out flat and mistake prone. We managed to 'find' that energy in the second half of the West Semi Final but 'lost' that energy again when we came out to play in the WDF. Why were lacking in energy?

Buono, however, wasn’t ready to give his charges a free pass in that department.“Did I feel the energy we wanted before the game)?” he asked rhetorically. “No. I didn’t feel the energy. That’s not necessarily who our team is.”

Maybe the Ottawa players have 'energy drinks' before a playoff game and our Leo players drink water. Perhaps the Ottawa players take a natural sleep aide before a game while our Leos players lie in bed reciting the mantra "its all about execution" and don't get to sleep. There's gotta be a reason why our Leo players lack energy to start two playoff games and other teams like Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Calgary don't.

"Three times we couldn’t convert on second and two (in the first half). All of a sudden you’re punting, you’re punting, you’re punting and your defence is exposed, exposed, exposed. The last thing you want to do is be exposed to Bo Levi because he’s going to hurt you.” Wally Buono

So, why was Ottawa able to pass block or run block those Calgary defenders on second and short yesterday and our players couldn't 'execute' in the same way on our second down and short conversions? There has to be answer!! Our Leos failed on three attempts to convert 2nd and less than five (Wally was 'incorrect' above, we only had one second and 2 in the first half against Calgary). Yesterday Ottawa converted 7 second and short second down attempts., including 3 second and 4's, two second and 3's, and two second and one's.

Ottawa ran the football 4 times and passed the football three times on those second and short plays in the first half. Both LeFrance and Vann ran the football. On second and short Burris also threw to Ellingson (21 yds), Lavoie (20 yds.) and Campbell was successful on a challenge call for pass interference on a third second and short pass attempt.

Our Leos were the CFL's best rushing team during the regular season. Ottawa finished 4th in rushing this season. Maybe our Leos offensive linemen 'forget' how to block on second and two. In fact they seem to do this a lot. They forgot how to block a number of times on second and two this season. We lost in Winnipeg during the regular season because we forgot how to block on second and two. Jeremiah Johnson ran into a wall in the WDF for a loss while LeFrance and Vann had holes to run to yesterday.

Maybe we need to send our Leos offensive lineman to some memory enhancement workshops during this off-season. Ottawa's offensive lineman must be attending memory enhancement seminars because they 'remembered' how to block yesterday on second and short.

Its gotta be a 'memory' thing because Draheim started at left tackle for Ottawa yesterday and he wasn't good enough for us and Lauzon-Seguin is a rookie offensive lineman- Gott, McMillan, and Deane are not considered outstanding - no Ottawa offensive lineman made the East All-Star team. Yet Ottawa's offensive line run blocked very well yesterday. Gotta be a reason for our offensive line's lack of execution - gotta be a memory thing or an energy thing or something like that. Next season our players will need to add a second phrase to the mantra.

It will be "WE GOTTA EXECUTE AND WE GOTTA REMEMBER TO BLOCK"

But how to explain Ottawa's success on second and short in the passing game compared to ours. Rainey got stopped for 1 yard and lost yards (-6 yds.) on the swing passes we threw to him on second and short against Calgary.

Maybe Rainey 'forgot' how to run fast and cut sharply. That's gottta be it. It has to be his lack of 'execution'.

It couldn't be that Calgary had the play 'sniffed out' or because the play design telegraphs the play.We ran the play 5 times against Calgary for 18 yards. There is no one faster or better than Rainey in the open field but it couldn't be the play was badly designed because, as maxlion says ' we have a dynamic offence' and Wally says "We have the game plan so its up to our players to go out and execute" so it can't be our scheming and play calling. Nope, it can't be that!!

On defense, Ottawa shut down Calgary to 7 first half points. We gave up 32 points to Calgary in the first half of the WDF and 25 points to the Bombers in the first half of the Semi-Final. Ottawa ranked 6th in defense in the regular season while our defense ranked 3rd in points against. We tied for most sacks in the CFL during the regular season. Ottawa finished 5th in sacks. Our defense was 2nd against the run and 4th against the pass this season. Ottawa was third against the run and 8th against the pass this season.

So, what could explain Ottawa's defence coming out so well against Calgary yesterday and our defense basically horrible in the first half against both Winnipeg and Ottawa. Was it an energy thing or a sleep thing or a remembering how to play defense thing or what? We KNOW it has to be about execution but WHY couldn't we execute in the playoffs like Ottawa? Gotta be a reason other than coaching but what is ii?

Maybe it was a 'momentum' thing. Nope - we had won 4 games in a row going into the playoffs. Maybe it was a where we played? Nope- we sucked in the first half at home and away in the 2016 playoffs.

I just gotta figure out this 'why we didn't execute' in the first half of playoff games this season. Aaaaah.

Maybe it's not all about execution after all. Maybe it could be this. Its getting closer to Xmas and the lessons learned from Scrooge in the infamous A Christmas Carol. After being visited by Marley and the three Ghosts of Xmas Past, Present, and Future, Scrooge said:

Bob, I haven't taken leave of my senses. I've come to them. Can you forgive a pig-headed old fool with no eyes to see"

[Blitz]

I've seen articles suggested Burnham and Steward could draw NFL interest as free agents. If Burnham signs with an NFL team, or even accepts free-agent tryout offers, re-signing Nick Moore becomes more of a priority. And if Steward leaves, the Lions will be hard pressed to start four nationals on the O-line.

We shoulda tried to sign Steward and Burnham before they became free agents.

DanoT » Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:52 am
I wonder if Wally even watched the Grey Cup game. If he did he would have found out that his "Here is what we do, try and stop us" doesn't work as well as a "First try to figure out what we are doing and by the time you do that we will have a big lead" game plan.

The surest path to success in playoffs and GC is to give the other team looks and formations that they haven't seen before or haven't seen since early in the season. Trying to confuse the opponent is not Wally's Way, but congrats to Rick Campbell for being a smart coach and figuring out how to beat Calgary

Nah Dano! The reason Ottawa won was because they 'executed' at a phenomenally higher level against Calgary yesterday than we 'executed' in the WDF.

Ottawa's offence racked up 534 yds of offence, including 461 yds. in the air because their offence 'executed' better than our offence did in the WDF. Ottawa's offence scored 26 first half points against Calgary in the Grey Cup and we scored 0 points in the first half of the WDF because our offensive players somehow just didn't 'execute' in the first half against Calgary, while Ottawa did.

Defensively, Ottawa's players somehow had a higher level of 'execution' in the Grey Cup than our defensive players did in the WDF. Ottawa held Calgary to 7 first half points in the Grey Cup while our defense 'held' Calgary to 32 first half points.

Perhaps we should try to find out more about EXECUTION, in other words, what made Ottawa players execute at such a phenomenally higher level than our B.C. Lions did.

Perhaps its the pre-game meal? Maybe its sex or no sex before a game. Maybe its the beards? Many of Ottawa's offensive and defensive lineman sport beards. Gotta be a reason. We KNOW its NOT THE coaching. Now that wouldn't make sense, would it?, It wouldn't, expeciallialy when Wally tells us its all about player execution and never about coaching.

Ottawa's players also came out 'energized' on both sides of the football. Ottawa was energized in the snow too, against Edmonton in the Semi-Final. Our Leos, in both playoff games can out flat and mistake prone. We managed to 'find' that energy in the second half of the West Semi Final but 'lost' that energy again when we came out to play in the WDF. Why were lacking in energy?

Buono, however, wasn’t ready to give his charges a free pass in that department.“Did I feel the energy we wanted before the game)?” he asked rhetorically. “No. I didn’t feel the energy. That’s not necessarily who our team is.”

Maybe the Ottawa players have 'energy drinks' before a playoff game and our Leo players drink water. Perhaps the Ottawa players take a natural sleep aide before a game while our Leos players lie in bed reciting the mantra "its all about execution" and don't get to sleep. There's gotta be a reason why our Leo players lack energy to start two playoff games and other teams like Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Calgary don't.

"Three times we couldn’t convert on second and two (in the first half). All of a sudden you’re punting, you’re punting, you’re punting and your defence is exposed, exposed, exposed. The last thing you want to do is be exposed to Bo Levi because he’s going to hurt you.” Wally Buono

So, why was Ottawa able to pass block or run block those Calgary defenders on second and short yesterday and our players couldn't 'execute' in the same way on our second down and short conversions? There has to be answer!! Our Leos failed on three attempts to convert 2nd and less than five (Wally was 'incorrect' above, we only had one second and 2 in the first half against Calgary). Yesterday Ottawa converted 7 second and short second down attempts., including 3 second and 4's, two second and 3's, and two second and one's.

Ottawa ran the football 4 times and passed the football three times on those second and short plays in the first half. Both LeFrance and Vann ran the football. On second and short Burris also threw to Ellingson (21 yds), Lavoie (20 yds.) and Campbell was successful on a challenge call for pass interference on a third second and short pass attempt.

Our Leos were the CFL's best rushing team during the regular season. Ottawa finished 4th in rushing this season. Maybe our Leos offensive linemen 'forget' how to block on second and two. In fact they seem to do this a lot. They forgot how to block a number of times on second and two this season. We lost in Winnipeg during the regular season because we forgot how to block on second and two. Jeremiah Johnson ran into a wall in the WDF for a loss while LeFrance and Vann had holes to run to yesterday.

Maybe we need to send our Leos offensive lineman to some memory enhancement workshops during this off-season. Ottawa's offensive lineman must be attending memory enhancement seminars because they 'remembered' how to block yesterday on second and short.

Its gotta be a 'memory' thing because Draheim started at left tackle for Ottawa yesterday and he wasn't good enough for us and Lauzon-Seguin is a rookie offensive lineman- Gott, McMillan, and Deane are not considered outstanding - no Ottawa offensive lineman made the East All-Star team. Yet Ottawa's offensive line run blocked very well yesterday. Gotta be a reason for our offensive line's lack of execution - gotta be a memory thing or an energy thing or something like that. Next season our players will need to add a second phrase to the mantra.

It will be "WE GOTTA EXECUTE AND WE GOTTA REMEMBER TO BLOCK"

But how to explain Ottawa's success on second and short in the passing game compared to ours. Rainey got stopped for 1 yard and lost yards (-6 yds.) on the swing passes we threw to him on second and short against Calgary.

Maybe Rainey 'forgot' how to run fast and cut sharply. That's gottta be it. It has to be his lack of 'execution'.

It couldn't be that Calgary had the play 'sniffed out' or because the play design telegraphs the play.We ran the play 5 times against Calgary for 18 yards. There is no one faster or better than Rainey in the open field but it couldn't be the play was badly designed because, as maxlion says ' we have a dynamic offence' and Wally says "We have the game plan so its up to our players to go out and execute" so it can't be our scheming and play calling. Nope, it can't be that!!

On defense, Ottawa shut down Calgary to 7 first half points. We gave up 32 points to Calgary in the first half of the WDF and 25 points to the Bombers in the first half of the Semi-Final. Ottawa ranked 6th in defense in the regular season while our defense ranked 3rd in points against. We tied for most sacks in the CFL during the regular season. Ottawa finished 5th in sacks. Our defense was 2nd against the run and 4th against the pass this season. Ottawa was third against the run and 8th against the pass this season.

So, what could explain Ottawa's defence coming out so well against Calgary yesterday and our defense basically horrible in the first half against both Winnipeg and Ottawa. Was it an energy thing or a sleep thing or a remembering how to play defense thing or what? We KNOW it has to be about execution but WHY couldn't we execute in the playoffs like Ottawa? Gotta be a reason other than coaching but what is ii?

Maybe it was a 'momentum' thing. Nope - we had won 4 games in a row going into the playoffs. Maybe it was a where we played? Nope- we sucked in the first half at home and away in the 2016 playoffs.

I just gotta figure out this 'why we didn't execute' in the first half of playoff games this season. Aaaaah.

Maybe it's not all about execution after all. Maybe it could be this. Its getting closer to Xmas and the lessons learned from Scrooge in the infamous A Christmas Carol. After being visited by Marley and the three Ghosts of Xmas Past, Present, and Future, Scrooge said:

Bob, I haven't taken leave of my senses. I've come to them. Can you forgive a pig-headed old fool with no eyes to see"

[WestCoastJoe]

Thanks for the chuckle, Blitz. One can cry. One can laugh. A bit of laughter helps ease the toothache and the overall pain.

* Xs and Os.

* Personnel.

* Execution.

It's a trinity, a troika, as are so many things. Best to give each its due.

Can you win with basic Xs and Os? On some days. Perhaps the opponent does not execute well that day. Perhaps your personnel is better. Perhaps your stars elevate the team.

Can you win with ordinary personnel? Very, very hard. But it seems to me that good management will find competitive players. They have to. Otherwise their team will be hard pressed to win games. IMO every team has the opportunity to fill up the roster with top quality players. The pipelines are full of talented players. Internationals by the thousands. Nationals at the top level. Ottawa has done an outstanding job filling its roster with top level personnel, and they did it in a hurry. It can be done. Teams should all have top personnel.

Can you win without top execution? Maybe both teams suck on some days. And you win a game in the mud. LOL But the best teams have the best execution from game to game. I would say those are the best-coached teams. So even execution comes back to coaching, IMO. The staff preps the mental game along with the physical game and the strategy.

We saw both teams execute in the Grey Cup at a very high level. The offences were pretty much unstoppable Well, IMO, good offence cannot be stopped. It might be slowed down a bit. Defence has the bigger challenge in the CFL. Huge fields. Motion all over the place. Speed. Accurate QBs. That is what makes it a great game.

Where does this fan see our team in the three areas?

Personnel. First rate, with some soft spots.

Xs and Os. Basic. Old school philosophy. You will not stop us. Puts us at a disadvantage in big games. Not so much during the regular season. (Sometimes old school can prevail. This fan remembers Jimmy Brown of the Cleveland Browns being unstoppable even when the opponent, like the New York Giants of LB Sam Huff, knew where he was going to run. No doubt Johnny Bright of the Eskimos was unstoppable as well.)

Execution. It is oftentimes excellent, even with basic Xs and Os. Example: Sometimes your QB, under defensive pressure, can squeeze the ball into the tightest window one can imagine, even against double teams. Or an outstanding receiver can out jump, out time the opponent, in tight coverage, with the defence not fooled. Or the kick returner runs with afterburners on full. But it unrealistic to expect that all the time. Best to keep the opponent off balance with some calculated deception.

Oh, lest we forget, we fizzled in our final game.

Just IMO ...