Monday Morning Joe

[notahomer]

We can look forward to Mitchell and Collaros for years to come.

Hope you're right about that. I'd like to see us get Dan LeFevour out of Hamilton (provided he's fully back from that knee injury).

Me too! Dan's the man, IMO.....

[DanoT]

I think you probably right about it being a blip. This was a bad year for offenses but that is what was reflected in the GC game. Do I care that it was a bit boring? Not really, it was what it was, neither great nor awful. Somewhere in between. I just can't however get on board with the idea that somehow this was all great coaching. Great coaching would have found a way to get the best RB in the league more involved. Great coaching would have found a way to get the ball in the end zone when you have 3 cracks from within the 5. Great coaching would have addressed the penalties that the Cats insisted on taking all season and that ultimately cost them a cup. And honestly, although Dave won the game, he could just have easily lost it and it was a mistakes by the Cats that gave him that victory, not his offensive game plan. His offensive game plan produced a a whole 3 points in an entire half of football and 6 in the better part of 3 quarters. It ultimately worked but you have to agree that Calgary would have much preferred it if they could have put some more offensive plays together in the 2nd half. If they had, there wouldn't have been the need for some last minute brain cramp of the Cats to win the game. If that nylon hadn't have flown, do you think Dave would be saying today "but it was a great game plan". Ultimately, it was successful only because other other team gaffed and more than once. Credit to the defenses because they played pretty good; credit where credit is due and all that. However, I can't say I found it stellar. The very definition of a Stubler defense; bend don't break. A scheme that many fans here grew frustrated with over the years. Solid but uninspiring in many aspects.

Good game, solid game, sure. Showcase? Not for me at least but that is of course only my opinion.

Great post as it pretty much mirrors my view. While the Stamps had an excellent passing strategy in the 1st half, not getting Cornish involved in the 2nd was a big mistake and could have been done by using 2 tight ends. Nik Lewis outweighs most LBs so he should have little trouble run blocking most LBs.

[Toppy Vann]

There is a tendency to overstate the role of coaching at times and forget it is players out there executing or not.

I like Austin and his staff looks good but if Benevides had lost this game like the CATs did we'd be bringing out the tar and feathers getting ready to run him out of a town on a rail etc etc.

BAD coaching when gifted a penalty with 1st and goal led to 3 points when that was the time for an easy 7.
Slow play calling - deep obvious handoff kept up the HAM 2014 of trouble in the red zone. Why they were letting the Stamps prepare and slow huddle is bad coaching.

Coaches dream of that scenario and a good game plan will play to what they've been showing all year down there by the goal line.

A TD and not a FG there and that might have changed how the game fared from there.

I didn't think the player was able to get to Banks but on review thought it had to be called. Even the player is admitting he was wrong.
But he also adding - that it is not all about one play in a 60 min game and he is right.

[Blitz]

I didn't think it was a well coached game. Yes, Dickenson had a great game plan in the first half and built up what turned out to be an insurmountable 17-0 lead by continuously attacking the wide side of the field through the air. Steinauer did nothing to counteract this, conceding first down after first down with soft coverage on the field side. The Ticats generated no pressure on Mitchell, allowing him five, six or seven seconds to find receivers coming open. Most of Mitchell's success came in the first half, when he went 14/17 for 220 yards. That's on Steinauer. The adjustments came too late.

In the second half, the tables turned somewhat and Collaros had some success exploiting Stubler's zone coverage, while the Ticats finally tightened up their coverage. Calgary generated just three points in the half, Mitchell turned the ball over with a bad pass into zone coverage, Collaros went 14/20 for 187 yards and the Ticats slowly clawed back into the game.

If not for a penalty flag on the final punt return by Banks, the postgame narrative would have been much different. It would have been about how Hufnagel's Stampeders blew another big game they should have won, how Stubler got too conservative on defence, letting the Ticats get back into the game, how Dickenson and Hufnagel ignored Calgary's vaunted running game and were unable to move the ball and eat up the clock when it mattered, and about how Calgary's special teams were unable to shut down Hamilton's main weapon. In short, the focus would have been all about bad coaching. One penalty flag changed the narrative but it didn't change my perspective.

From the stands, I didn't find it an exciting or intense game. I was cheering for the Ticats but I knew they were likely done in first half, and my main hope was that they would make enough plays to keep the game from becoming a blowout. When they tried to make a comeback in the fourth quarter, their CFL-worst red-zone offence let them down as it had all year. That's more bad coaching. Their only real hope of winning was to get a punt-return TD from Banks. It almost happened, but until that final minute there wasn't a lot for Hamilton fans to cheer about.

It`s a difficult question to analyze how good the coaching was in the Grey Cup game.

Obviosly Calgary and Hamilton were two of the best coached teams coming into the Grey Cup game, with Calgary having by far the best record in the league at 15-3. Even more impressive was that Calgary suffered more injuries this season to key players than any team in the league and still were very successful.

Hamilton had much more of an uneven season. They began the season with a 1-6 record but turned things around with a 9-2 record to wrap up the regular season. Hamilton`s 9-9 won-loss record was the same as our Leos but they completed the regular season on a roll while our Leos collapsed. Hamilton beat beat Montreal in the Eastern Final and that Montreal team was up 50-3 on our Leos in the East Semi-Final and went on to give our Leos a humiliating loss.

I really liked the game plan of Dave Dickenson in the first half. He decided to mostly use Cornish as a decoy, knowing that he would not only be facing the best run defense in the CFL but also a Hamilton team that was going to load the box to stop Cornish. Dickenson went with a lot of play action in the first half, along with some tendency breakers. His fake handoff on second and two and his inside toss play, an overhand throw to Nik Lewis, rather than a shovel pass were both great calls. Dickenson also called some timely screen passes in the first half.

Hamilton`s defense stuggled against Calgary in the first half for two major reasons. The first is that they couldn`t get pressure on Calgary`s Bo Levi Mitchell. Calgary has such an outstanding offensive line that its hard to get pressure even when blitzing and Mitchell was also elusve at times, buying time. That allowed Calgary receivers to get wide open downfield. It sure a lot easier to look like a successful offensive coordinator when you have a great offensive line. Run plays during the regular season often resulted in Calgary`s running back having huge holes to run to, getting to the second layer without being touched. When you have a back with the talent of Cornish it makes calling running plays and play action plays an easy call in most games.

Still, I give Dickenson credit for not trying to go against Hamilton`s strength. Too mnay times on Lionbackers I`ve read that we should run and run against a blitz. Its a much better strategy to exploit the weakness of a blitz by throwing the football downfield. However, you need good pass blocking and good anti-blitz pass plays to do that. Dickenson had both going in the first half of the Grey Cup game.

I thought Steineur did not adjust quickly enough in the first half to Calgary`s game plan. However, I do give him a lot of credit for some excellent half time adjustments.

Hamilton`s offence stuggled in the first half because Stubler mixed things up so well. He often only rushed three on first down and came with the blitz on second down. Often he gave a 3 man defensive front look and blitzed a linebacker. Stubler gave Hamilton a ton of false reads and rotated his secondary in ways that were very innovative. Collaros was under a lot of pressure in the first half and when he had time, Calgary was often blanketing his recievers. Still, Collaros found ways to make plays and he is going to be a very good one in the future, as is obviously Bo Levi Mitchell.

In the second half, Stubler focused on taking away the deep ball, especially after Banks had got behind the Calgary defense. He was determined to make sure Hamiltion had to drive the field. Calgary was willing to bend but not break or give up an easy one in the second half.

I thought Stubler coached a very smart game. Steinauer had to go into this game focused on stopping Cornish. He really had no other choice but when Calgary came out with a lot of play action throws and he couldn`t get any pressure on Bo Levi Mitchell I thought he should have backed off sooner, expecially with Calgary getting so many recievers open deep downfield. But whenSteinauer did make adjustments Dickenson stayed with the same game plan and his offence was held to only 3 second half points. That was not good enough and it almost cost Calgary the Grey Cup.

I thought Dickenson should have run the football more in the second half and especially with time running out. Had Banks punt touchdown not been called back due to penalty there would have been a lot of criticism directed towards Calgary`s strategy. Dickenson went to the air on both downs with the ability to run out the clock. Banks would never have had the chance to field the punt as time would have run out if Dickenson would have run the football on the Calgary last drive.

But Austin also made mistakes in the second half. His call for a deep run handoff on the two yard line was not a wise call in what should have been three down territory. Hamilton was pinned for a loss on the second down carry and forced to kick a field goal. A quick hitter, a quarterback sneak, or a quick play action pass would have been much better calls.

The Tiger-Cats ranked ninth in the league in taking advantage of opportunities in the red zone. That pattern continued in the Grey Cup game. Over the final eight games of the regular season, Hamilton converted just eight of its last 22 red zone chances into touchdowns. For the season, its red zone TD percentage was 40 per cent, compared to No. 1 Calgary at 77 per cent.
So when Hamilton had to settle for three field goals in the second half in its comeback bid against the Stamps, it was an indication that Hamilton needed better offensive coaching in the red zone and will have to get this fixed next season.

Calgary not only passed the football a lot in the Grey Cup game because they knew that Hamilton was excellent against the run and also would stack the box against Cornish. Dickenson and Hufnagel also knew that Hamilton had the worst pass defnese in the CFL, finishing 9th, dead last, and worse than Ottawa in that categoy. That is concerning, especially when Hamilton`s defensive coordinator, Orlando Steinauer is a former defensive back as a player and he was a very good one.

The saddest part of this game was that the most exciting play in the game and the play that would have resulted won the game for Hamilton and begged a lot of questions in the off-season for Calgary was called back due to penalty. The game had offerred so much up to that point. It combined some excellent offence and strategic defense.

Mitchell completing 22 of his first 25 passes for 309 yards, including 14 of 17 for 220 yards in the first half as the Stamps built a 17-0 lead. Collaros, finished 25 of 33 for 342 yards and had the spotlight in the second half in Hamilton`s comeback. It was a very good feeling to see two quarterbacks who are basically first year starters look so good. It bodes well for the future of the CFL that we have these two young emerging stars as quarterbacks.

Now to the punt return, that to me, spoiled the game. No question it was a penalty as was called all season. No question that the Hamilton player put his hands on the Calgary player`s back. No question that the Calgary player embellished it. Finally, to me, there is no question that the illegal block was inconsequential to the play. Banks was gone whether the Hamilton blocker touched the Calgary player or not and it was borderline. But it had to be called, based upon the season and the way that punt return blocking is penalized.

However, the CFL really needs to look seriously at penalties next year. They spoiled a lot of games this year. Penalites were up. A penalty can be called on every CFL play and too many are called. There seems to be no discretion. A penalty is a penalty (althought the refs really missed an out of bounds hit on a return by a Calgary player in the second half of the game). I believe that a penalty that is not flagrant and does not affect the play should be let go. There are all kinds of chintzy penalties being called in today`s CFL. It needs to change.

I feel heartbroken for Banks and Hamilton. Calgary got very lucky that a penalty that was inconsequential to the play happened. It allowed them to win the Grey Cup when their fate could have been much different.

In terms of the quality of coaching in this game, obviously both coaching staffs had done a very good job to have their teams playing in this game. Both came in with the game plans that showed the ability to exploit weaknesses or take away strengths. One could look at Dickenson`s first half coaching as a key to the win. Or, had Banks return stood up, it would have been Dickenson who was the goat and Steinauer`s second half adjustments as being the key to a Hamilton great comeback victory that was not to be. Or perhaps Stubler was the key to the game. His defense was so good in the first half and bent but never broke in the second half.

Or perhaps Jeff Reinebold would have been the hero as well. His special teams led the CFL and he almost came though with a well designed return as he ran the picket fence to the wide side of the field to utilize Banks speed. Or Calgary`s special teams coordinator Mark Kilamcould have been the goat for not having the coverage needed on that last punt to Hamilton or it could have been Hufnagel for choosing to punt to Banks all game in the first place.

What I came away with, from this game, most of all, was the key reason for Calgary being such a dominant team over the past number of seasons and that is their offensive line and offensive line coaching. And they start four Canadians. Calgary`s offensive line is so very good and its the area that we have to get fixed mosst if our Leos are going to become a true contender again.

In the end thought it was a very good game, with excellent coaching at times, questionable coaching at others, great plays, exellent quarterbacking, and an exciting game.

What more could one ask for, except the outcome of the game not determined by a borderline punt return block that had to be called but made no difference to the play.

It was the CFL..a game I love..and the Grey Cup...almost always a treat to watch and this one was no different.

[WestCoastJoe]

Great review, Blitz. One of your best.

[Toppy Vann]

Blitz post in part:

What I came away with, from this game, most of all, was the key reason for Calgary being such a dominant team over the past number of seasons and that is their offensive line and offensive line coaching. And they start four Canadians. Calgary`s offensive line is so very good and its the area that we have to get fixed mosst if our Leos are going to become a true contender again.

In the end thought it was a very good game, with excellent coaching at times, questionable coaching at others, great plays, exellent quarterbacking, and an exciting game.

What more could one ask for, except the outcome of the game not determined by a borderline punt return block that had to be called but made no difference to the play.

It was the CFL..a game I love..and the Grey Cup...almost always a treat to watch and this one was no different.

This is the key part for the STAMPS - their OLINE is always in recent years able to open holes for whoever is back there. That is why rest games for Cornish this year didn't freaking matter to their HC who waxed philosophical on how Cornish looks at his life and his injuries versus forcing him to play.

In soccer as a coach my philosophy espec on turf is play at full pace, keep the ball, short passing - the guy closest to you is your first and best option, reduce the odds of losing the bill by instilling the thought process of Vic Rapp frmer HC of the BC Lions on the long pass - 3 things can happen - two of them are bad...now consider that again .... BUT underpinning all of that is my foundation belief that in soccer you must be strong from the back out. Fail there and the rest don't mean bleep starting with a GK who thinks simple (I give him the reads and the order of them - look to the Strikers - if 1 on 1 then punt to open space - if marked 2 on 1 then look to the wide backs to dump it off, and if that is not on, then punt to safety or look for another safe option. GK is QB back there.

In football the parallel on the offensive side is that OLINE and the QB are the starting points. An average QB can win games if that OLINE is able to be plug and play and this is the Lions Achilles heel. Dorazio ain't able to do this consistently and if you look back to the Murphy - Jimenez hey days, those two guys who changed how OLINE were viewed basically did more to change the culture then Dorazio did to teach blocking. Those guys had swagger as they were a great unit feeding off those mean tackles. Then it falls apart and the last of the two becomes "uncoachable".

[TheLionKing]

I think you probably right about it being a blip. This was a bad year for offenses but that is what was reflected in the GC game. Do I care that it was a bit boring? Not really, it was what it was, neither great nor awful. Somewhere in between. I just can't however get on board with the idea that somehow this was all great coaching. Great coaching would have found a way to get the best RB in the league more involved. Great coaching would have found a way to get the ball in the end zone when you have 3 cracks from within the 5. Great coaching would have addressed the penalties that the Cats insisted on taking all season and that ultimately cost them a cup. And honestly, although Dave won the game, he could just have easily lost it and it was a mistakes by the Cats that gave him that victory, not his offensive game plan. His offensive game plan produced a a whole 3 points in an entire half of football and 6 in the better part of 3 quarters. It ultimately worked but you have to agree that Calgary would have much preferred it if they could have put some more offensive plays together in the 2nd half. If they had, there wouldn't have been the need for some last minute brain cramp of the Cats to win the game. If that nylon hadn't have flown, do you think Dave would be saying today "but it was a great game plan". Ultimately, it was successful only because other other team gaffed and more than once. Credit to the defenses because they played pretty good; credit where credit is due and all that. However, I can't say I found it stellar. The very definition of a Stubler defense; bend don't break. A scheme that many fans here grew frustrated with over the years. Solid but uninspiring in many aspects.

Good game, solid game, sure. Showcase? Not for me at least but that is of course only my opinion.

[B.C.FAN]

Great comments by Blitz, Sir P and DanoT. I think many of us saw it the same way.

I appreciate all the thoughtful analysis on this site, especially when we bring different perspectives. A healthy exchange of ideas is good. Keep it up. We have six months to kill.

[Sir Purrcival]

I appreciate all the thoughtful analysis on this site, especially when we bring different perspectives. A healthy exchange of ideas is good. Keep it up. We have six months to kill.

LOL. A yes, the stark realities of the off season. I guess that coach hiring will provide the silver lining to what is usually a quiet time for local fans.

[WestCoastJoe]

I thought Stubler coached a very smart game. Steinauer had to go into this game focused on stopping Cornish. He really had no other choice but when Calgary came out with a lot of play action throws and he couldn`t get any pressure on Bo Levi Mitchell I thought he should have backed off sooner, expecially with Calgary getting so many recievers open deep downfield. But whenSteinauer did make adjustments Dickenson stayed with the same game plan and his offence was held to only 3 second half points. That was not good enough and it almost cost Calgary the Grey Cup.

Stubes really mixed it up. Great goalline stand. Great red zone D. Varied the coverages.

And yet Collaros lit it up for big yardage.

But Austin also made mistakes in the second half. His call for a deep run handoff on the two yard line was not a wise call in what should have been three down territory. Hamilton was pinned for a loss on the second down carry and forced to kick a field goal. A quick hitter, a quarterback sneak, or a quick play action pass would have been much better calls.

Yes, Stubler certainly won that round. Great call. One would certainly expect the D to penetrate. And Hamilton goes with the deep handoff. Collaros was mortified, as evidenced by his body language.

The saddest part of this game was that the most exciting play in the game and the play that would have resulted won the game for Hamilton and begged a lot of questions in the off-season for Calgary was called back due to penalty. The game had offerred so much up to that point. It combined some excellent offence and strategic defense.

That was sad. And Calgary would have had a bit of time to come back once again.

Mitchell completing 22 of his first 25 passes for 309 yards, including 14 of 17 for 220 yards in the first half as the Stamps built a 17-0 lead. Collaros, finished 25 of 33 for 342 yards and had the spotlight in the second half in Hamilton`s comeback. It was a very good feeling to see two quarterbacks who are basically first year starters look so good. It bodes well for the future of the CFL that we have these two young emerging stars as quarterbacks.

Yes.

In terms of the quality of coaching in this game, obviously both coaching staffs had done a very good job to have their teams playing in this game. Both came in with the game plans that showed the ability to exploit weaknesses or take away strengths. One could look at Dickenson`s first half coaching as a key to the win. Or, had Banks return stood up, it would have been Dickenson who was the goat and Steinauer`s second half adjustments as being the key to a Hamilton great comeback victory that was not to be. Or perhaps Stubler was the key to the game. His defense was so good in the first half and bent but never broke in the second half.

True.

In the end thought it was a very good game, with excellent coaching at times, questionable coaching at others, great plays, exellent quarterbacking, and an exciting game.

What more could one ask for, except the outcome of the game not determined by a borderline punt return block that had to be called but made no difference to the play.

There were different themes throughout the game. Ebb and flow.

I enjoyed it very much.

Thanks for your very detailed analysis, Blitz.

And maybe a couple of us saw it as a coaching chess match. And a good one at that. Pretty much the minority view here, it seems. Different views. I've seen boring games, hard to watch. That certainly wasn't the case here for me.

What did you see at the scene of the crime? Crisp passing attack by Bo, called by Dickenson. Then Zach and Hamilton gradually get it going until they are red hot, called by Condell/Austin. Except in the red zone. Back and forth. Stubler and Steinauer had their moments. Dickenson and Condell had their moments. Hufnagel and Austin had their teams very well prepped, it seemed to me. And not a one sided game. Showcase? For me, yeah. I will take that kind of football. With all respect for those that see it differently.

And now the game is watching Wally's moves in filling the HC spot.

[Blitz]

As Wally looks for a new Head Coach I was not surprised this season to see defenses dominating the CFL. In fact, its at the defensive coordinator level that I believe the CFL has seen the most innovation. I read on Lionbackers that there is a new cadre of offensive coaches that are innovative. Its not what I see but that comment needs clarification and context which I will come back to.

MLF, of all Lionbacker posters, advocates the most for aggressive defense. I agree.

Don Matthews became renouned, first as a defensive coordinator and then as a Head Coach for playing very aggressive defense and blitzing a lot. Dave Ritchie was also an innovative aggresisve coach who utilized a lot of formations, defensive personell, zone blitzes, etc. He was the next really innovative defensive coach after Matthews. Ritchie could bring the house, rush two, drop defensive ends into coverage on zone blitzes. You never knew what you were going to get on each down.

Rich Stubler also brought complex defenses into the CFL game. His pass defenses involved a lot of rotations, were very difficult to read, and he also had the ability to mix things up very well. Stubler, often known as a bend but don't break defensive style of coach, was much more aggressive than many fans realize. He will drop a lot of people into coverage at times but he is also a caoch who blitzes skillfully. His regular season defense of 2012 was the best Leos defense of all time.

Chris Jones was the next defensive innovator. He brought back press coverage man to man defense into the CFL. He often blitzed while playing press man coverage and most spread offences were stymied by his defensive style of play.

Montreal, in 2013, went back to a Don Matthews style of defense. They often brought seven or eight defenders into the box and used the blitz often, both as a run blitz and a pass blitz. But most CFL defenses blitz a lot these days, while mixing things up by dropping 8 or 9 defenders into coverage.

A few seasons ago, I wote an article on the Annus Stukus Chalk talk titled "The Spread is Dead". I anticipated that most CFL offensive coordinators and Head Coaches would move away fromt the spread offence and begin to run more multi-formational offenses using a lot more power formations. I was wrong.

Defenses had caught up and bypassed the spread offence. The spread offence had been in vogue for a long time. It had become the 'in' offence to utilize, once the West Coast Offence, popularized by Bill Walsh, had passed its nadir. Fullbacks became extinct in the spread offence. Most NFL teams, like copycats, hired spread offensive coordiantors, as before they had hired West Coast offensive coordinators. The New England Patriots with Tom Brady, became the NFL's most successful spread offensive team.

In the CFL, John Hufnagel, introduced the CFL version of the spread offence in Calgary, while serving as Buono's offensive coordiantor. Utilziing five or six offensive receivers on the wide and long CFL field, Hufnagel matched up his fifth and sixth reciever against slow linebackers and defenses were overwhelmed. The offence was passed on to George Cortez and Jaques Chapdelaine. Other CFL offensive coordinators also developed their own versions of the spread offence.

However, defenses adjusted. They added the nickel linebacker, a tweener, and the dime back to better defend the pass. Defensive coordinators added mamoth defensive tackles to negate the spread offence running attack, which was focused on running inside the tackles. Defensive coordinators began blitzing like hell, with the goal of giving little time for a quarterback to throw to those wide receivers and punishing the quarterback as well. They also utilized formations and personell, that dropped nine defenders into pass coveage at times, blanketing receivers.

John Hufnagel, having served a lot of time in the NFL, returned to the CFL, in 2007, as an offensive consultant to our B.C. Lions. Chap had left for Edmonton, following our Grey Cup win in 2006, knowing that he would never get a shot at the HC job in B.C. with Benevedes as the heir apparent. Kruck and Dorazio became our new co-offensive coordinators in 2007 and Buono asked Hufnagel to provide them with some guidance.

Hufnagel had seen the future and it was not playing 'pitch and catch football out of the spread offence all game. He knew that defenses had adjusted and therefore favored an offensive change to an increased focus on the running game. Dickenson and Pierce both got hurt early in that 2007 season, but with Jarious Jackson starting for the first time ever, as our third string quarterback, we won 9 of our last 11 regular season games with Joe Smith pounding the football. We scored the most points in the CFL in 2007. But some offensive players did not like the offence. Dickenson stated he wasn't happ with it early in that season, before he was injured and Geroy Simon was definitlely not enamored with it nor was Jason Clarmont. They were all used to playing pitch and catch in the spread offence. Handing the football off or blocking for the run was not their idea of fun nor would if be favorable at contract time.

Some of those players went to Wally at the end of 2007 and voila, Chapdelaine and the spread offence was back. But the results of the spread offence were not favorable to our Leos. Our Leos slid from 2008 to early 2011. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Chap moved away from the spread offence part way through 2011, going with a lot more power formations, and much more misdirectiona and motion. We won the Grey Cup in 2011 and our offence was very good in 2012.

The major reason that I changed my tune on Chapdelaine and became a supporter, after being a fierce critic, was that he moved away from being a spread offence devotee to become the CFL offensive coordinator who began using the spread offence the least. I thought Chap's offence from 2011 on was very innovative, the most innovative in the CFL. I felt he didn'tun enough screens or anti-blitz plays at times but loved the motion and misdirection and power formations he used.

But Chap also had to deal with a huge challenge as he always had to, and that challenge was Dorazio. Dorazio's offensive line has given up the most sacks of any CFL team during his tenure. I used to blame Chap for being in the spread offence, which made our quarterbacks vulnerable but Dorazio's line couldn't even open holes for the running game or pass block even with power fomations. Chap took most of the heat for it. It not only took a new blocking scheme 2/3 of the way through the 2013 season (unheard of), the addition of Stefan Logan, and Chap using recievers in motion as lead blockers to get holes opened up for the run.

In the mean time, while the NFL teams were moving away from the spread offence (eg: New England went back to a lot of tight end sets and Brady taking a good percentage of snaps under center) most CFL teams were and still are enamored with the spread offence. The successful coaches in the CFL have not been spread offence devotees. Hufnagel has been so successful because he has favored the running game, developing offensive lineman who can run block and pass block, and using play action off the run. Its why Kevin Glenn was successful in Calgary and a key as to why Bo Levi Mitchell is as well. Calgary can throw almost any quarterback out there and their offence can move the football. Trestmann was also very successful with an innovative, multi-formational offence, rather than being a spred devotee. I differ in that I don't see most CFL teams having innovation in their offences.

Rather, what we tend to have in the CFL today are just some very good spread offensive coaches. Kent Austin is a spread offence guy as is Condell. So was George Cortezn as is Milanovich in Toronto. Give their quarterbacks time to throw and the spread offence looks great. But defenses who get pressure on those offences often shut them down. Even highly smart, skillful quarterbacks like Ricky Ray can look less than ordinary at times against those run/pass blitzing defenses. I don't see these coaches as innovative at all. They are using the same style of offence that most CFL teams are running and have been utilizing for a long time. The low scoring in the CFL is the result of it. Hamilton had a terrible red zone offence this season and most CFL teams red zone offence is mediocre because they can't run the football well enough. Calgary has the best red zone offence in the league for good reasons.

Back in B.C., this season, under Khari Jones, we went more spread offence than any other CFL team. Most CFL offence only use the six reciver set rarely. Its an old spread offence formation that most CFL coordinators have abandoned except for a change up look. We used a six receiver set very often in the first half of the season and we were were in the five receiver set except towards season end, when we started to use it power formations a little more often. We used more spread offence this season than we have since 2010 and the results were dismal. Throw in our mediocre offensive line play, inability to pick up blitzes and stunts and you often have two down and out offence.

Yes, there are games when the spread offence works. But it takes outstanding offensive line play, a quarterback who can deliver consistently with defenders in his face, taking hits and sacks, and delivering accurate footballs under great pressure. Or the the quarterback has to be a savior and make plays constantly. The spread offence is also very tough on quarterbacks and the injury rate is high.

The two best teams in the CFL this season, Calgary and Edmonton, were the two best running teams...not the two best spread offence teams that were focused on playing pitch and catch.

Its no longer the recipe for offensive success. If our Leos want to get things changed they are going to need to hire a Head Coach as welll as an offensive coordinator who is not a spread offence junkie but instead someone who knows that you have to be ahead of the curve. Hufnagel was ahead of the curve when he introduced the spread offence in Calgary and he was ahead of the curve when the became the HC/GM of Calgary and favored the running game.

The problem is that there are not much out there in the CFL right now, in terms of coaches, that can move us into a new offensive direction. Most CFL assistants, coordinators are former CFL quarterbacks or players who played in the spread or learned their coaching skills under a spread offensive coordinator or Head Coach.

We might be wiser to either look to the Canadian university ranks or the NFL, or U.S. colleges to find ourselves an offensive coordinator who has not been inculcated into the spread offence. It might be wise to look to the U.S. for a HC as well and find someone who is going to look at things differently.

To be successful you have to take the lead and be ahead of the curve. This season, our Leos were so far behind the curve they couldnt' even see the way around the corner. If we want to become a very successful team again..same old is not going to cut it. Passive defense and the spread offence are not the recipe for future success.

[MexicoLionFan]

As Wally looks for a new Head Coach I was not surprised this season to see defenses dominating the CFL. In fact, its at the defensive coordinator level that I believe the CFL has seen the most innovation. I read on Lionbackers that there is a new cadre of offensive coaches that are innovative. Its not what I see but that comment needs clarification and context which I will come back to.

MLF, of all Lionbacker posters, advocates for aggressive defense. I agree.

Don Matthews became renouned, first as a defensive coordinator and then as a Head Coach for playing very aggressive defense and blitzing a lot. Dave Ritchie was also an innovative aggresisve coach who utilized a lot of formations, defensive personell, zone blitzes, etc. He was the next really innovative defensive coach after Matthews. Ritchie could bring the house, rush two, drop defensive ends into coverage on zone blitzes. You never knew what you were going to get on each down.

Rich Stubler also brought complex defenses into the CFL game. His pass defenses involved a lot of rotations, were very difficult to read, and he also had the ability to mix things up very well. Stubler, often known as a bend but don't break defensive style of coach, was much more aggressive than many fans realize. He will drop a lot of people into coverage at times but he is also a caoch who blitzes skillfully. His regular season defense of 2012 was the best Leos defense of all time.

Chris Jones was the next defensive innovator. He brought back press coverage man to man defense into the CFL. He often blitzed while playing press man coverage and most spread offences were stymied by his defensive style of play.

Montreal, in 2013, went back to a Don Matthews style of defense. They often brought seven or eight defenders into the box and used the blitz often, both as a run blitz and a pass blitz. But most CFL defenses blitz a lot these days, while mixing things up by dropping 8 or 9 defenders into coverage.

A few seasons ago, I wote an article on the Annus Stukus Chalk talk titled "The Spread is Dead". I anticipated that most CFL offensive coordinators and Head Coaches would move away fromt the spread offence and begin to run more multi-formational offenses using a lot more power formations.

Defenses had caught up and bypassed the spread offence. The spread offence had been in vogue for a long time. It had become the 'in' offence to utilize, once the West Coast Offence, popularized by Bill Walsh, had passed its nadir. Fullbacks became extinct in the spread offence. Most NFL teams, like copycats, hired spread offensive coordiantors, as before they had hired West Coast offensive coordinators. The New England Patriots with Tom Brady, became the NFL's most successful spread offensive team.

In the CFL, John Hufnagel, introduced the CFL version of the spread offence in Calgary, while serving as Buono's offensive coordiantor. Utilziing five or six offensive receivers on the wide and long CFL field, Hufnagel matched up his fifth and sixth reciever against slow linebackers and defenses were overwhelmed. The offence was passed on to George Cortez and Jaques Chapdelaine. Other CFL offensive coordinators also developed their own versions of the spread offence.

However, defenses adjusted. They added the nickel linebacker, a tweener, and the dime back to better defend the pass. Defensive coordinators added mamoth defensive tackles to negate the spread offence running attack, which was focused on running inside the tackles. Defensive coordinators began blitzing like hell, with the goal of giving little time for a quarterback to throw to those wide receivers and punishing the quarterback as well. They also utilized formations and personell, that dropped nine defenders into pass coveage at times, blanketing receivers.

John Hufnagel, having served a lot of time in the NFL, returned to the CFL, in 2007, as an offensive consultant to our B.C. Lions. Chap had left for Edmonton, following our Grey Cup win in 2006, knowing that he would never get a shot at the HC job in B.C. with Benevedes as the heir apparent. Kruck and Dorazio became our new co-offensive coordinators in 2007 and Buono asked Hufnagel to provide them with some guidance.

Hufnagel had seen the future and it was not playing 'pitch and catch football out of the spread offence all game. He knew that defenses had adjusted and therefore favored an offensive change to an increased focus on the running game. Dickenson and Pierce both got hurt early in that 2007 season, but with Jarious Jackson starting for the first time ever, as our third string quarterback, we won 9 of our last 11 regular season games with Joe Smith pounding the football. We scored the most points in the CFL in 2007. But some offensive players did not like the offence. Dickenson stated he wasn't happ with it early in that season, before he was injured and Geroy Simon was definitlely not enamored with it nor was Jason Clarmont. They were all used to playing pitch and catch in the spread offence. Handing the football off or blocking for the run was not their idea of fun nor would if be favorable at contract time.

Some of those players went to Wally at the end of 2007 and voila, Chapdelaine and the spread offence was back. But the results of the spread offence were not favorable to our Leos. Our Leos slid from 2008 to early 2011. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Chap moved away from the spread offence part way through 2011, going with a lot more power formations, and much more misdirectiona and motion. We won the Grey Cup in 2011 and our offence was very good in 2012.

The major reason that I changed by tune on Chapdelaine and became a supporter, after being a fierce critic, was that he moved away from being a spread offensive coordinator to become the CFL offensive coordinator who was using the spread offence the least. I thought his offence from 2011 on was very innovative, the most innovative in the CFL. I felt he didn'tun enough screens or anti-blitz plays at times but loved the motion and misdirection and power formations he used. But he also had to deal with a huge challenge and that challenge was Dorazio. Dorazio's offensive line has given up the most sacks of any CFL team during his tenure. I used to blame Chap for being in the spread offence, which made our quarterbacks vulnerable but Dorazio's line couldn't open holes for the running game or pass block even with power fomations. Chap took most of the heat for it.

In the mean time, while the NFL teams were moving away from the spread offence (eg: New England went back to a lot of tight end sets and Brady taking a good percentage of snaps under center) most CFL teams were and still are enamored with the spread offence. The successful coaches in the CFL have not been spread offence devotees. Hufnagel has been so successful because he has favored the running game, developing offensive lineman who can run block and pass block, and play action off it. Its why Kevin Glenn was successful in Calgary and why Bo Levi Mitchell is as well. Calgary can throw almost any quarterback out there and their offence can move the football. Trestmann was also very successful with an innovative, multi-formational offence, rather than being a spred devotee. I differ in that I don't see most teams having innovation in their offences.

Rather, what we tend to have in the CFL today are just some very good spread offensive coaches. Kent Austin is a spread offence guy as is Condell. So was George Cortezn as is Mlanovich in Toronto. Give their quarterbacks time to throw and the spread offence looks great. But defenses who get pressure on those offences often shut them down. Even highly smart, skillful quarterbacks like Ricky Ray can look less than ordinary at times against those run/pass blitzing defenses. I don't see these coaches as innovative at all. They are using the same style of offence that most CFL teams are running and have been utilizing for a long time. The low scoring in the CFL is the result of it. Hamilton had a terrible red zone offence this season and most CFL teams red zone offence is mediocre because they can't run the football well enough.

Back in B.C., this season, under Khari Jones, we went more spread offence than any other CFL team. Most CFL offence only use the six reciver set rarely. Its an old spread offence formation that most CFL coordinators have abandoned except for a change up look. We used a six receiver set very often in the first half of the season. We were in the five receiver set most of the time, except towards season end, when we started to use it a little more often. We used more spread offence this season than we had since 2010 and the results were dismal.

Yes, there are games when the spread offence works. But it takes outstanding offensive line play, a quarterback who can deliver consistently with defenders in his face, taking hits and sacks, and delivering accurate footballs under great pressure. Or the the quarterback has to be a savior and make plays constantly.

The two best teams in the CFL this season, Calgary and Edmonton, were the two best running teams...not the two best spread offence teams that were focused on playing pitch and catch.

Its no longer the recipe for offensive success. If our Leos want to get things changed they are going to need to hire a Head Coach as welll as an offensive coordinator who is not a spread offence junkie but instead someone who knows that you have to be ahead of the curve. Hufnagel was ahead of the curve when he introduced the spread offence in Calgary and he was ahead of the curve when the became the HC/GM of Calgary and favored the running game.

The problem is that there are not much out there in the CFL right now, in terms of coaches, that can move us into a new offensive direction. Most CFL assistants, coordinators are former CFL quarterbacks or players who played in the spread or learned their coaching skills under a spread offensive coordinator or Head Coach.

We might be wiser to either look to the CFL university ranks or the NFL or U.S. colleges to find ourselves an offensive coordinator who has not been inculcated into the spread offence. It might be wise to look to the U.S. for a HC as well and find someone who is going to look at things differently.

To be successful you have to take the lead and be ahead of the curve. This season, our Leos were so far behind the curve they couldnt' even see the way around the corner. If we want to become a very successful team again..same old is not going to cut it. Passive defense and the spread offence are not the recipe for future success.

Fantastic thoughts Blitz, I agree whole heartedly including your historical breakdown...the thing is, there are a NUMBER of young coaches in the NCAA that are NOT running the spread and are having great success in College football. All of this is being taught to their OC's...such as Scott Frost at Oregon (the former Cornhusker QB). Some of these smart, young minds will bite on the chance to become a HC in Canada for a few years, win a championship and move into an NFL HC spot like Trestman did...this is an avenue we should be exploring. Wally needs to hire someone that can coach against the model in CGY...and as I have said again and again, wait until Jones gets better talent in EDM!

[notahomer]

One of the newerish things (I know, most things are actually recycled ideas from another time) brought about by Chip Kelly and Peyton Manning to an extent, is the up tempo. Really keep the defense on edge, things moving so quickly they almost don't get time to read whats going on. Sometimes Peyton is the exact opposite, using every second to analyze and audible. Kelly's offence just seems so quick both in-between plays and effectiveness. When Kelly's offence is CLICKING, they score quickly too so its not just the cadence, but keeping the D, guessing.......

[Blitz]

One of the newerish things (I know, most things are actually recycled ideas from another time) brought about by Chip Kelly and Peyton Manning to an extent, is the up tempo. Really keep the defense on edge, things moving so quickly they almost don't get time to read whats going on. Sometimes Peyton is the exact opposite, using every second to analyze and audible. Kelly's offence just seems so quick both in-between plays and effectiveness. When Kelly's offence is CLICKING, they score quickly too so its not just the cadence, but keeping the D, guessing.......

You bring up an interesting point notahomer regarding Chip Kelly's offence. One is that, with their quick tempo offence, they don't huddle. Chap used to go into no huddle at times but certainly not to the extent of Kelly.

I also liked your point that most things are recycled. Chip Kelly really runs a form of West Coast offence but he disguises it well. But what Kelly does that is interesting is that the play call often comes off reading the defence. He also uses motion and formation to create either numbers or mismatches. An example is that he will line up a receiver in the backfield. If you look at Chap's offensive plays in the 2013 Semi Final against the Riders he lined up four players in the backfield at times and then used motion.

A good example of a Chip Kelly offensive play is that he will use a lineman outside along with two receivers in a stack. That gives him 3 bodies against two defenders. If the defense adjusts and sends a linebacker out to even out the numbers, Kelly will run the football to the area the linebacker has vacated. If the defense doesn't adjust, he calls the bubble screen.

In reality Kelly runs audibles all game. He doesn;t call plays in the huddle and he doesn't just call a play at the line before the defense sets up. He sets the formation, waits for the defense to set up to the formation and then calls the play. There really isn't a lot that is innovative, in terms of his actual plays but its the up tempo and the approach to calling plays that makes has made his offences successful.

But certainly, its often at the U.S. college level that we get out of the box thinking and then those concepts are adopted by the pros and the best of those college coaches enter the pros.

[MexicoLionFan]

That's a very good analysis of Chip Kelly guys...he was the OC in Oregon in 2007/08 and then the HC...Oregon has the best overall record in the NCAA since that time...Kelly's system (which is very much like what JC eventually evolved into himself) is all the rage in the NCAA and now in the NFL. The key, and Kelly has said this time and again, is an athletic OLine that can get the job done! As Kelly said, without an OLine to control the LOS and get out into space, none of my ideas work!

The more and more I see things unfold the more I understand that JC was the victim of a HORRIBLE OLine coach who has compromised out Offence (and its health) for a DECADE!

I would like to see a "disciple" of Kelly's system here because to operate that system you have to be SMART! You have to think on your feet by definition...it is the ultimate "adjustment" offence, as they are literally adjusting on EVERY DOWN to what the defences are doing!

So for those on this site worrying that there aren't any good coaches available to guide the Lions back to success, you're miss informed...there are lots of top coaching minds that might give the CFL a chance for a few years to make names for themselves. In the CFL right now are Jeff Garcia and Orlando Steinhauer (plus LaPolice) that possess good football minds. Garcia has a chance to be SPECIAL...and I would still welcome Wally coming back for a season as HC, making Garcia OC and Asst. HC, grooming him to take over, like he should have done with Dave Dickenson!!!