Lionbackers.com

JohnHenry wrote: While I don't favour Chaps style of offence, the main reason our QB's keep getting injured is they hang on to the ball to long...and don't hook slide after the 1st down is gained (DD and Buck). If the offencive scheme has no backs in to block, the QB must get rid of it quickly, not wait on some slow developing play long downfield. If you want to see how to operate a CFL quick passing attack, just watch Joe Zuger in the '67 Grey Cup...not much chance for the QB to get injured in that offence:

That is partially a matter of forcing players into a scheme rather than designing a scheme that suits the players' skills.

Tighthead wrote:That is partially a matter of forcing players into a scheme rather than designing a scheme that suits the players' skills.

Que?

Hypothetical: A play is called: Geroy the primary on the under crossing pattern (left-to-right), Paris the secondary on the over crossing pattern (r-to-l), Emanuel the third on a deep post (l-to-r), the two wideouts running fades taking their men deep and Mallett picking up blitz then releasing to the flats.

If JJ/BP/CP/whoever sees the OLBers creeping up blitz-style, the onus is on the QB to change it hot and get rid of the ball quickly. How is that forcing players into a scheme?

Hawkballer 14 wrote:

Tighthead wrote:That is partially a matter of forcing players into a scheme rather than designing a scheme that suits the players' skills.

Que?

Hypothetical: A play is called: Geroy the primary on the under crossing pattern (left-to-right), Paris the secondary on the over crossing pattern (r-to-l), Emanuel the third on a deep post (l-to-r), the two wideouts running fades taking their men deep and Mallett picking up blitz then releasing to the flats.

If JJ/BP/CP/whoever sees the OLBers creeping up blitz-style, the onus is on the QB to change it hot and get rid of the ball quickly. How is that forcing players into a scheme?

Chap likes schemes that don't offer max protect. The best QBs for those schemes make quick reads and get rid of the ball. BP and DD seem to prefer to hold on to the ball as discussed, unlike Calvillo. BP and DD would likely do better with a TE or FB in for more protection. Rollouts also by the QB more time, but those plays aren't a big part of the playbook either. Chaps is kind of a run and shoot type (not a criticism, just an observation) and I don't think that suits our QBs.

You are talking about one play, as opposed to the scheme or philosophy.

I'd rather have one guy responsible rather the "who's to blame, don't know, who's in charge decision by committee". Now there is no doubt, if the O fails there is just one guy that needs to get shipped out. Good for the coach, good for the team and good for the fans. I don't like Chaps but I hated the lack of accountability even more. Hope Chaps proves I'm wrong in my assessment of his coaching now that he's in control of the O! If not maybe he can move onto the HC positon on Braley's other team.

Don't understand why they couldn't have called him OC when he WAS the OC for '08 and '09?

Puzzling, that.

Solar Max wrote:Don't understand why they couldn't have called him OC when he WAS the OC for '08 and '09?

Puzzling, that.

But just think how many fans out there think that the Lions are making an adjustment for their lack of offensive success now.

Could this be do or die for JC, now that clearly it's his name on the line? I was a little disappointed to hear this news. I suppose reading about "changes" in the off-season can be soothing as we await kick-off, but all we can do is give it a chance and see what happens.

In Lowell Ullrich's story in The Province, Wally acknowledges that running offences and defences by committee doesn't work.

"Maybe because of the way I structured things during the [practice] week I made things more difficult during the games," he said.

"The process was too dysfunctional. I'm not saying I interfered too much during the game, but maybe the way things were structured during the week didn't allow us to be as efficient in our preparation for the game."

Wally is establishing clear lines of authority and vowing to let coordinators manage games from the sidelines. Having less input from Wally in running the short-yardage offence and protecting a lead on defence is a good thing.

Buono adds coaches, seeks clarity

Solar Max wrote:Don't understand why they couldn't have called him OC when he WAS the OC for '08 and '09?

Puzzling, that.

To a spade: "Yes, I'm calling you a spade!"

Solar Max wrote:Don't understand why they couldn't have called him OC when he WAS the OC for '08 and '09?

Puzzling, that.

I would venture a guess that Edmonton was paying some of JC's salary those years, and probably wrote into his settlement that he couldn't be an official OC.

Hawkballer 14 wrote:

Solar Max wrote:Don't understand why they couldn't have called him OC when he WAS the OC for '08 and '09?

Puzzling, that.

I would venture a guess that Edmonton was paying some of JC's salary those years, and probably wrote into his settlement that he couldn't be an official OC.

This is an excellent observation, and one that a lot of people forgot. Why should the Lions let Edmonton weasel out of paying a portion of Chap's salary in those years? Just give him a different title other than OC. I have seen the same thing happen in U.S. college football - a coordinator gets canned at school X, and ends up being a "graduate assistant" for a year at school Y. In reality, he is a core coach, but they give him the grad assistant title in order to force the old school to keep paying him.

The old max protection/no max protection argument is an old one in football. It isn't particularly unique to BC - Mike Martz, for instance, racks up a lot of yards for his offenses wherever he goes, largely because he is a master at creating and exploiting mismatches. (This guy got two 4,000 yard passing seasons out of Jon Kitna, for God's sake.) The way you get those mismatches, though, is by having five or six receivers out in the pattern, and getting one of them in man cover with an inferior athlete. (i.e. a running back being covered by an inside linebacker out in space.) The flip side of that, though, is that you are leaving your QB exposed - there is no getting around it. Montreal gets away with it because their offensive line is outstanding, and as a result those guys can put up points like no one's business. If you have offensive linemen getting turnstyled, though, you just can't run that system without your QBs taking some horrendous hits.

I don't know, going from 4th (07) to 3rd (08) to 5th (09) in O stats is not the right direction, and does not give me much hope for 2010 with no real changes occurring in the coaching ranks.

Hawkballer 14 wrote:

Solar Max wrote:Don't understand why they couldn't have called him OC when he WAS the OC for '08 and '09?

Puzzling, that.

I would venture a guess that Edmonton was paying some of JC's salary those years, and probably wrote into his settlement that he couldn't be an official OC.

Oh, I would venture that's more than a .02 guess!