Moderator: Team Captains
Absolutely agree.Blitz wrote:Winnipeg brought the full out blitz against the Riders last weekend and the result for the Riders was dismal..with Durrant only passing for 129 yards.
Guess dealing with blitzing defenses and not having a good enough scheme isn't just isn't a Leo problem to deal with.
All teams are having their difficulties dealing with it in various degrees. What surprises me is that this is nothing new....Mathews did it and so did Ritchie. However, back in the day offences were also able to burn it. However, most offences now are spread offences and they don't have the personell to deal with it as effectively as day of old.WestCoastJoe wrote:Absolutely agree.Blitz wrote:Winnipeg brought the full out blitz against the Riders last weekend and the result for the Riders was dismal..with Durrant only passing for 129 yards.
Guess dealing with blitzing defenses and not having a good enough scheme isn't just isn't a Leo problem to deal with.
And even Calvillo has had trouble when blitzed heavily.
Rich Stubler and Chris Jones are the most respected defensive coordinators in the league but they're polar opposites in philosophy. Stubler's defence uses zone and combination coverages to take away a quarterback's first read and buy extra time for the D-line to get to him with four-man pressure.Blitz wrote:What surprises me, in this season of the full out blitz is that Stubler has probably used it the least. Maybe that will be a good thing in the end. The more different you are to play against the more advantaged you are. Football ahs always been a monkey see, monkey do sport and especially the NFL. Every one was almost running a version of West Coast at one time or the 3-4 defense and now everyone down there wants an athletic quarterback so they can run the zone read.
Almost every CFL offence is a spread offence and has been for a long time. Offences that are multi-formational are advantaged but only if they have the personell to go power as well as spread and most don't.
It will be interesting to see how often Stubler dials up the defense against Montreal. Toronto made Marsh look bad by blitzing him while we either allowed himn to escape or beat us deep. Stubler has tape on him now and it will be interesting to see how he attacks or defends Montreal this time.
Actuallu to make matters worse Hamilton didn't really blitz that often, they just schooled the Lions OL. Lions had equal numbers in protection, just that they were blocking the same guys or nobody at all. Montreal is going to be able to use their blitz or attempt to run stunts like Hamilton did. Getting Lulay time to make his reads is going to be a monumental task for JC and company.WestCoastJoe wrote:I agree, Blitz.
The problem DCs will have trying to do it is believing in it. And it is a gamble. Stubler is more cautious. I kind of doubt he will try it. Matthews had no trouble committing to it. And he was totally convincing to his players. I love what Jones does in Toronto.
My take on Hamilton. They saw the Alouettes do it to us. They tried a bit of it in game 1. But not totally committed. Game 2 they went for it. They did back off later and almost paid for it.
Some thoughts ...
I was walking a bit and thinking today. Nice sunny day.
...........
Under centre.
IMO it would not necessarily matter that much if we don't have "tight ends." Use our slots. Either in tight end position, or as slots. They will be covered. But the inside position will often be open. If it is taken away (receivers take the outside position), Lulay can quick roll, the way Montana did with his receivers or with fullback Tom Rathman (at one time). Short passes. Easy to throw. Easy to catch. Must be defended vigorously. LBs will be looking back from the LOS at the play behind them.
That is just one idea. An idea I would explore: paper, computer, visualize, walk through, at speed, very light contact. Looks good, go with it.
I have not designed a playbook in over 20 years, but it brings back the creative juices, thinking about the dilemma facing OCs right now.
Not too hard to solve. But teams will have to fully commit to it.
Many, many ways ... The better OCs will solve it first. JC's Test #3 is coming up. He can do it. But will he see it, will he believe it, and will he sell it to his players? Not so sure. I don't really think creativity is his thing.
I heard JC met with his players on the field before practice, 20 minutes. If his ideas are a rehash, he will lose them. If he has not already lost them. If he has the answers, we will see it vs Montreal. If he has the answers the Alouettes will have to back off to a more normal depth.
What a shocker. Not.Jarious Jackson, who is now the quarterbacks coach on the Lions staff, explained to me in Week 2 that he has worked as a buffer at times between Travis Lulay and offensive coordinator Jacque Chapdelaine.
“There was one instance when we were having success from our short passing game and we went away from it for a couple of series,” Jackson said. “Travis could see that our OC was very busy on the sideline and came to me asking to return to the quick game, so I went to Chapdelaine and talked about it.”
By being the go-between Jackson allowed Lulay to stay focused on what was happening on the field and still got his message to the OC.
WestCoastJoe wrote:Go no huddle for the whole game. Let JC pursue whatever thoughts he wants on the sideline.
Let Lulay improvise with his championship level playing instincts, instead of slowing down to someone's idea of symmetry and perfection in a diagrammed play, executed exactly as drawn up. Without adaptation to the realities of the situation, as in 8 men blitzing.
Let Lulay call his own game. Which of the two has played quarterback? Lulay or Chapdelaine? Which of the two has quarterbacked a team to a Grey Cup title? Which of the two has played QB in college and in the pros, with the NFL, NFL Europe and the CFL?
Who has the better offensive instincts?
All those QBs cut loose? Probably can't learn the hand signals. Essential to elite quarterbacking.
............
Resigned to our fate. Rant over.
Now that I am mostly working in Hong Kong, I can't comment but when I used to go to Lion games before and after JC went to Edmonton, when I saw him on the sidelines there was not much interaction with the players o/s the QB unless he was annoyed. I wonder if his headset his turned to off as:TheLionKing wrote:Suitor's comments makes me wonder what Chapdelaine is doing on the sideline than focusing his attention on playcalling. Let Dorazio deal with the offensive line and Kelly Bates on the running backs.
I really enjoyed this post WCJ. I respeted and appreciated your approach of thinking of the dilemma facing offensive coordinators right now and thinking about play design to combat the blitz.WestCoastJoe wrote:I agree, Blitz.
The problem DCs will have trying to do it is believing in it. And it is a gamble. Stubler is more cautious. I kind of doubt he will try it. Matthews had no trouble committing to it. And he was totally convincing to his players. I love what Jones does in Toronto.
My take on Hamilton. They saw the Alouettes do it to us. They tried a bit of it in game 1. But not totally committed. Game 2 they went for it. They did back off later and almost paid for it.
Some thoughts ...
I was walking a bit and thinking today. Nice sunny day.
...........
Under centre.
IMO it would not necessarily matter that much if we don't have "tight ends." Use our slots. Either in tight end position, or as slots. They will be covered. But the inside position will often be open. If it is taken away (receivers take the outside position), Lulay can quick roll, the way Montana did with his receivers or with fullback Tom Rathman (at one time). Short passes. Easy to throw. Easy to catch. Must be defended vigorously. LBs will be looking back from the LOS at the play behind them.
That is just one idea. An idea I would explore: paper, computer, visualize, walk through, at speed, very light contact. Looks good, go with it. One idea, roughed out by an amateur.
I have not designed a playbook in over 20 years, but it brings back the creative juices, thinking about the dilemma facing OCs right now.
Not too hard to solve. But teams will have to fully commit to it.
Many, many ways ... The better OCs will solve it first. JC's Test #3 is coming up. He can do it. But will he see it, will he believe it, and will he sell it to his players? Not so sure. I don't really think creativity is his thing.
I heard JC met with his players on the field before practice, 20 minutes. If his ideas are a rehash, he will lose them. If he has not already lost them. If he has the answers, we will see it vs Montreal. If he has the answers the Alouettes will have to back off to a more normal depth.
We may not always like JCès play calling but having Lulay call the plays would only add more pressure to him and also have him thinking even more (and he has already said that one of the problems of his game is that he thinks too much)WestCoastJoe wrote:Go no huddle for the whole game. Let JC pursue whatever thoughts he wants on the sideline.
Let Lulay improvise with his championship level playing instincts, instead of slowing down to someone's idea of symmetry and perfection in a diagrammed play, executed exactly as drawn up. Without adaptation to the realities of the situation, as in 8 men blitzing.
Let Lulay call his own game. Which of the two has played quarterback? Lulay or Chapdelaine? Which of the two has quarterbacked a team to a Grey Cup title? Which of the two has played QB in college and in the pros, with the NFL, NFL Europe and the CFL?
Who has the better offensive instincts?
All those QBs cut loose? Probably can't learn the hand signals. Essential to elite quarterbacking.
............
Resigned to our fate. Rant over.
I found this post fascinating. I was aware that our red zone defense was not that good but was not aware it was that bad. And it makes purrfect sense that it is because we remain in zone inside the 20 rather than going man. There is no good reason why we shouldn't be able to play man either. Why do you think our secondary is not built to play man defense?B.C.FAN wrote:Rich Stubler and Chris Jones are the most respected defensive coordinators in the league but they're polar opposites in philosophy. Stubler's defence uses zone and combination coverages to take away a quarterback's first read and buy extra time for the D-line to get to him with four-man pressure.Blitz wrote:What surprises me, in this season of the full out blitz is that Stubler has probably used it the least. Maybe that will be a good thing in the end. The more different you are to play against the more advantaged you are. Football ahs always been a monkey see, monkey do sport and especially the NFL. Every one was almost running a version of West Coast at one time or the 3-4 defense and now everyone down there wants an athletic quarterback so they can run the zone read.
Almost every CFL offence is a spread offence and has been for a long time. Offences that are multi-formational are advantaged but only if they have the personell to go power as well as spread and most don't.
It will be interesting to see how often Stubler dials up the defense against Montreal. Toronto made Marsh look bad by blitzing him while we either allowed himn to escape or beat us deep. Stubler has tape on him now and it will be interesting to see how he attacks or defends Montreal this time.
Jones's defence relies on speed, with a lot of man-to-man coverage in the secondary and extra pressure on the QB.
Stubler has blitzed more in the past two weeks than at any time in the season. He has some good athletes in Bighill and Banks who can get after the quarterback but they're also the best cover guys at their positions. The B.C. secondary isn't built to play a lot of man coverage. That's why opponents who get in the red zone where defences usually must play man-to-man almost always score TDs on the Lions (22 of 29 times this year, to be exact, or 76% of the time, the highest touchdown rate allowed by any defence.) By contrast, Jones's Toronto defence has given up just 11 touchdowns on 33 opponent trips to the red zone (33%), by far the best rate of any defence in the league. You'll recall the Lions went 0 for 4 in the red-zone in Toronto this year. They weren't the only team to struggle in that situation.
It's been said that teams that live by the blitz, die by the blitz. It's probably more appropriate to say that teams that don't live by the blitz (the Lions) are more likely to die by the blitz when they try it.
We see this differently, Biitz.Blitz wrote: The POSITIVES
1. We use more formations than any team in the CFL. We use a power formation, a pro split back formation, and the spread formation. In the spread we move receivers around, we use the tight bunch and wide bunch formation, and we often flood a side of the field while isolating on the other side.
2. We are not a predictable offence. Defenses blitz us to get us out of our offence.
Same idea here for me. Variety of running plays does not in itself bring deception. Fine tuning, timing, setting things up are some aspects that can bring surprise. I think people can agree that surprise happens in football. To me, that is deception. Were we surprised by the effectiveness of the all out blitz? Yes. We were deceived.3. We have an excellent variety of running plays - more variety than any other CFL team.
4. We use more designed sprint outs, semi-rollouts, and quarter boots than any other CFL team when not being blitzed.
Agreed.The Weaknesses
1. Our anti-blitz offensive package needs to be improved.
2. We are poor at blitz pickup.
3. We rarely screen
4. Our blocking against the blitz from our tailback and fullback is not good enough.
It is extremely unlikely to happen. IMO JC is something of a control freak, to use that phrase.We may not always like JCès play calling but having Lulay call the plays would only add more pressure to him and also have him thinking even more (and he has already said that one of the problems of his game is that he thinks too much)
