Bombers-Lions postgame comments

[CardiacKid]

I've given up expecting something from this management team. I am convinced they are either devoid of ideas or stymied by an unwilling owner.


DH

IMO expecting anything progressive from this group is just setting yourself up for frustration and a big dental bill from all the teeth grinding you will experience when they simply refuse to address the situation.

When someone says "D" in relation to the Leo's, I am not thinking defence, I am thinking "dysfunctional management".

[Blitz]

JJ is a stud at quarterback! This guy has all the tools to lead us for years. Mike Reilly suffered thru bad desicions like trying to run too often and throwing deep picks before he got it. My complaint is somehow management ishaving trouble conveying to Jennings that he just can not get picked over and again late if games toeventually lose those leads and wins.What was wrong with throwingor setting up a screen or handing the ball off during that drive???


And back to the 1st loss in Winnipeg when we could not get in from the 1 yard line,we were to tight and not spread out enough like previous years. Hey Rainy may have fumbled but this guy is a game breaker and these guys need more support from the coaching staff. Dumb play calling from Khari far too often.

It is dum play calling. There is way too much focus, when things go wrong, on the players. Jennings and Rainey will take the heat but there were too many coaches decisions and play calls as well, that impacted the outcome of this game, more than those two plays.

Nothing can get you into more trouble in football or in life than a sense of superiority or thinking that you are right and there is only one way to do things - your way. Its rigid thinking, black and white thinking, and that kind of thinking is role modelled by Wally.

Wally was enjoying this season. He looked happy and more relaxed than I've ever seen him, until the last three games. He was enjoying a winning season, basking in the limelight of turning our Leos around, and everyone was blowing smoke up his butt. He deserved appreciation for our early and mid-season success.

But people usually don't change that much in adulthood. Wally may have made some changes in the way he leads this season but he is still who he is at the core. He sees himself as a Legend and even publically calls himself one. He believes that he can do no wrong and that his way is the best way. He's always been that way. There is a big difference between confidence and over-confidence. When you are over-confident you are not adaptable.

Wally has a number of strengths. But his focus that any problem or error or lack of success is due to a lack of player execution gets him into trouble. He could never think that he or his coaches could ever be part of the problem, when something doesn't go right. He and his assistant coaches over many seasons, have had a group think mentality - if only the players his players executed our superior scheme or play call better, the result would have been different.

Football reporters and some fans also a party to the thinking that Wally perpetuates. This week, I''ve read a number of times now that Allen should have blocked Leggett's opposite shoulder, on the third and one play call in Winnipeg. The play was designed to ibe run outside of Leggett. Leggett was blocked properly to the inside. Leggett sniffed out the call and also made a great play.

A better example was, in the game, in the game in Winnipeg, on second and two, before the Rainey third and one play, was that we just didn't block the play for Allen well enough. Wally ensured, during the week, that the blame was due to the blocks by Husband and Steward. Most buy into it. Some think..if only Johnson was our tailback, instead of Allen, he would have gotten the yardage necessary.

So this week, our coaches say they are going to focus on red zone success, because we had 5 trips in the Bombers red zone last week and didn't fare well. So, last night, we are in exactly the same situation. We're in the red zone, on the Bombers 6 yard line - its second and two. exactly the same as last game, at exactly the same spot on the field, and its exactly second and 2.

We run the same inside zone read play again, only its Jeremiah Johnson carrying the football. He gets 0 gain. Last week, Allen got one yard. We're even worse, after focusing on red zone play all week and after working on our blocking all week for that inside zone read play,

Who makes the tackle on Jeremiah Johnson? Chris Randle, the Bombers corner back - on an inside zone read play. Last week, on the very same play call who makes the tackle? Loffler, the Bombers safety. Yet most buy into the notion, as stated by Wally during the week that it was Husband and Steward who screwed up the play. I wonder if he will blame them this week for not blocking a corner back?

The reality is the Bombers know the inside zone read is coming. They know we will be running inside, with zone blocking from five offensive linemen, who will use exactly the same footwork to block laterally on the play. They know, if they align a certain way, as in lining up a defensive tackle over center, it will force the double team block first and then the guard will have to peel off to block into the second layer. Then the Bombers play the game of numbers.

We have five offensive linmen blocking four down linemen, two linebackers, a nickel linebacker, plus the throw in a safety or defensive back to the mix. They have them close to the line of scrimmage so they can quickly knife in there. The Bombers make the stop, we're forced to kick a chip shot field goal, instead of having two cracks at a touchdown from inside the four yard line or less, and if there is criticism, it will be the fault of our players.

No matter how good the blocking is on the play, with the way the Bombers are defensing it, the play has a very low chance of success.

The notion of using a different running play on second and two, or blocking it differently, with a lead blocker leading it inside, is not even considered. We have a superior scheme, this is the right play call for this situation, and its up to you to execute it so it works. Crazy!

Its not stubbornness. Its black and white thinking, It never asks the important question the coaching staff needs to ask: "Is there something different we could be doing as coaches, on second and 2. If that question had been contemplated by the coaching staff, with the knowledge that the Bombers would be brining second and third layer defensive players into the mix to stop the play, we likely would have been successful on second and two. Score a touch down on that series and we win the game.

Its the same thing on our third and one call to punt in this game on the Bombers 44 yd. line. Its actually less than a yard. Its in the Bombers end of the field. The percentage success of going for it on third and one is better than 80% and higher with a quarterback sneak, which is the play to run in this situation. If we attempt a 50 yard field goal, the odds are not as good but the CFL average outside of 50 yards is 70%. Leone's field goal average, however lowers the odds and Wally is worried about a field goal return (but then allowed Leone to attempt a 52 yarder later in the game. Huh?

So the percentage is to run the quarterback sneak - its unquestionably the best choice. But instead Wally calls for a punt from a punter who can boom them but is not a good placement punter. We don't want Leone to kick a single. Wally is focused on field position. We punt the football, Fogg returns it 14 yards and the Bombers have the football on their 27 yard line.

So we give up the opportunity to extend the drive with a very high percentage quarterback sneak on third and less than one, lose the opportunity to score a touchdown, its only the second quarter, so field position is not critical at this juncture, and we gain 17 yards of field position.

And yet, most fans have become so accustomed to Wally's thinking that they think just like him. They become part of the whole group think phenomenon. Wally thinks conservatively and that's good because he's a Legend who has won a lot of games so he knows best. His assistants think that way, and then his players think that way, and then most of the fans think that way.

The reality is that the most conservative play and the highest percentage play, by far, is the quarterback sneak. If we run the quarterback sneak the odds are not only very high that we will be successful but the odds are also high, that if we do, we will come away with 3 points. That is based on our first down average yards. The odds of adding four yards in two downs is very high. Therefore Leone will be kicking a field goal inside the 40 - where his average is over 80%. So we have a 90% plus play that will lead us to an 89% plus chance of at least scoring 3 points...plus we get an opportunity, to go for a touchdown.

The next best highest percentage play is the field goal, even with Leone's spotty field goal kicking. However, if it was the fourth quarter and we had a lead that we were wanting to protect and not want to risk the field goal return, then a punt would make better sense than a field goal,.

But even then, Fogg averages over 15 yards a punt return. Fogg also has a 72 yard punt return this season and has had four punt return touchdowns called back due to penalty. The punt is not as conservative a play in this situation as some may think it is (and Wally obviously thinks its a conservative play -that is why he called for the punt)

But the coaching decisions in this game, like this one will eiher be glossed over by most and the sports writers will never even touch it. The strategy decisions, such as not having even a reasonable game plan for Harris likely be touched upon either.

Mike Beamish focused, prior to this game, on the two interceptions thrown by Jennings in our game in Winnipeg were highlighted rather than our defence giving up a quick 24 points before the fans had their seats warm or that Jennings had an incredible game in Winnipeg and one of those two interceptions bounced off Sinkfield's hands.

Why Jennings was not given better guidance from Wally and Jones in those last 3 minutes of the game will likely go under the radar. adar. Lulay's mentoring of Jennings will be ignored until Jennings has a good game again. The type of pass play call made for Jennings, let alone why we were not running the football on first down, with less than 3 minutes left in the game, will likely not be a focus. Jennings will publically take responsibility for the loss. Rainey will liklely do the same.

I believe in balance. If the players are under a microscope, so the coaches should be too. Player always take responsibility. Playersare criticized publicaly by our Head Coach. The players are employees who can be cut at any time. They can't say anything publically about the coaching they receive, the game plans they are expected to execute, the type of plays that are called and the situations they are called in, but the coaches can publically lay blame on any one of our players. That's the way it is. Its the way its always been.

However, I don't always put the blame on the players. I'm not a player who has to say I need to execute better, no matter how crappy the call from the coach is. I'm not a reporter who needs access to Wally. On this site, I can assess responsibility with greater freedom.

The Bombers have really improved since the start of the season. So have the Stamps and the Eskimos. We're not improving in too many areas of our football team. In fact, we're regressing in too many areas. I pin that less on our players and more on our coaching staff.

[WestCoastJoe]

Points well made, Blitz. Outstanding, in fact.

As noted earlier this season I have stepped back a bit, semi-retired, so to speak. And you continue to write what you see, as a passionate fan.

I think you nailed it. It seems to this fan that Wally's coordinators deliver the philosophy he wants in their designs. And it seems to this fan that, in general terms, the play of the players reflects the leadership of the coaching staff, whether they are sharp, focused and confident, or confused and unsure.

We have some absolutely stellar talent. And IMO we are outcoached game after game. We just do not do detailed, attack the vulnerabilities, game planning. You have given numerous examples. Our playbook is seemingly juvenile. Our play calling is like a slow motion car crash. It is the decades-old debate. Execution --> on the players. Schemes, playbook, game planning, play calls --> on the coaches.

Other teams do some very effective game planning to us. In O'Shea's time as HC, I have wondered about his effectiveness. But he has turned it on. Adjustments. Buy in by the players. Detailed, fresh game planning.

Lions' fans are being tortured lately. The pain is great.

Just IMO. Other fans might defend the status quo.

[South Pender]

Devastating loss. A couple of observations. First, only 19,520 fans showed up at BC Place for one of the most important--if not arguably the most important--home game of the season. In fact, over the last 3 home games--all post-Labour Day--the average attendance at BC Place is 19,110. Over the same three games at this time last season, and with a less-talented Lions team, the average attendance at BC Place was 21,404. That has to be a concern, I guess, but I'm not sure just how important in-stadium attendance is for the health of the game.

Second, given Blitz's excellent (as always) analysis of the game, from an X's and O's perspective, it's clear that the coaches are partly to blame for this loss--and this blame attaches to the two coordinators far more than to Wally, in my opinion. However, let's not forget that the Lions had 6 (or was it 5?) turnovers in the game. We can't blame Wally (or the coordinators) for this, and pointing to poor execution as a major contributor in the loss is not at all unreasonable. If we want to identify a single most significant reason for the loss, in my opinion it's turnovers, and, if we narrow this down further, it's Rainey's fumble with a little over 2 minutes remaining at the Bombers' 49 yard line that most directly cost us the game.

I, for one, don't see the Lions' current problem as largely Wally. We can analyze his personality if we want, but that personality is the one associated with more wins than racked up by any other CFL head coach. Nor, in my opinion, should we point to Wally's mentoring skills either. Jones and Washington are big boys with lots of experience by now, and, if the X's and O's have been poor, I'd say that it's on them, not Wally.

[DanoT]

There is not much I can add to the excellent post game analysis of previous posts except to paraphrase Marv Levy who once said that if a coach starts listening to the fans, then he will soon be sitting with them. Well, "You know" Wally, after getting out coached once again it would appear that the entire coaching staff would actually benefit from sitting with the Lionbackers and reading the analysis and constructive criticism that has been written on Lionbackers by several posters.

TBH I was prepared to give some kudos to Khari Jones for calling a more varied game with at least some sweeps, screens, and short passes until with the lead and less than 3 minutes left, he abandons the possession pass/run strategy and allows the long pass attempt which gets intercepted. Most high school coaches wouldn't call that play at that time. Worst call of the game and highlighted by a DB (might have been a LB but I don't have the stomach to re-watch the play to find out) blitz unabated to the QB. Jones should be embarrassed.

So with the Semi-final game now likely to be played in Winnipeg or Edmonton there will at least now be more CFL fans attending live than would show up in Vancouver. If B.C. can at least finish in 3rd then there will also be a large TV audience drawn from B.C.s large population of TV football viewers.

[Blitz]

Points well made, Blitz. Outstanding, in fact.

As noted earlier this season I have stepped back a bit, semi-retired, so to speak. And you continue to write what you see, as a passionate fan.

I think you nailed it. It seems to this fan that Wally's coordinators deliver the philosophy he wants in their designs. And it seems to this fan that, in general terms, the play of players reflects the leadership of the coaching staff.

We have some absolutely stellar talent. And IMO we are outcoached game after game. We just do not do detailed, attack the vulnerabilities, game planning. You have given numerous examples. Our playbook is seemingly juvenile. Our play calling is like a slow motion car crash. It is the decades-old debate. Execution --> on the players. Schemes, playbook, game planning, play calls --> on the coaches.

Other teams do some very effective game planning to us. In O'Shea's time as HC, I have wondered about his effectiveness. But he has turned it it on. Adjustments. Buy in by the players. Detailed, fresh game planning.

Lions' fans are being tortured lately. The pain is great.

Just IMO. Other fans might defend the status quo.

Thanks for your nice words WCJ. You don't post as often and have explained why ... but its good to read your thoughts.

I truly do believe, like you, WCJ, that we are being outcoached and I've written about the reasons why in terms of our historical patterns in terms of our team under Buono in terms of our scheme, game planning, play calling, in-game adjustments and so on so no need to repeat.

Most Lionbackers are long term Leo diehards. We remember those long drought seasons with lots of losses and the few Grey Cup victories are treasured. We can reminisce about the great players who wore the orange and red but as a team, we were characterized more often by failure than success. When Ackles arrived and then hired Buono, we enjoyed a lot of success from 2003-2007 in the regular season and played in two Grey Cup games (upset loss to Toronto in 2004, win against Montreal in 2006.

The seasons from 2008-2010 were the start of our slide and the calls in 2009-2010 for Buono to step down became loud and then we had that magical 2011 season and Buono stepped down. The 2012 season was excellent under Benevedes in his first year ( but we lost the WDF in 2012) and the slide began again. Two more years of Benevedes and one year of Tedford and the franchise was in trouble. (fans were staying away in droves, the team unsuccessful)

When Buono stepped back down on the sidelines this season and our Leos started winning, with an exciting and very bright, very talented young quarterback at the helm) it seemed all was good and well in Leo Land again. These recent losses have taken that euphoria out of the air for many die hard fans.

But I realized, at the start of this season, that the issues that have held back the talent on our Leos teams in the past would emerge. Buono would bring increased discipline, standards, and focus. His presence, as the all-time winningest CFL coach and his power, as the GM, as well as HC, would enable him to run a tight ship and his players would play hard for him and never question his authority.

However, I also knew that the same old would be there in terms of scheme, game planning, and play calling and eventually those would be factors that would likely have a negative impact as the season progressed. I believed that Jonathan Jennings was such a talent that he would be a difference maker. But I also knew we had difference makers before, especially at the quarterback position, and that would not be enough. We'd had Dickenson and he couldn't overcome the scheme in the 2004 Grey Cup and lost the WDF in 2005 and 2007, with a superior team than the one we faced. Pierce couldn't overcome it. Lulay did in 2011 for one season but we also played a weak Bombers team in the Grey Cup and one season anomoliies are possible.

Basically, it has never really made much of a difference who the HC was, in terms of strategy, scheme, etc because we did ran the same stuff as we always had under Wally when Benevedes and Tedford became our HC. It really never mattered, for the most part, whether Chap was the OC or Kruck or Dorazio, or Khari Jones, or Cortez, or back to Khari, this season, its still the same old spread offence scheme. The players change, the offensive coordinator changes, the Head Coach changed, and it was the same old, just like it is this season.

A Dickenson may prefer to throw the intermediate route, a Printers may escape the pressure and throw on the run, a Jackson may hand off the football more under a Steve Kruck , a Pierce may take off more up the middle, a Lulay may scramble more often, and a Jennings may throw downfield a lot more, but its the same scheme, with some minor tweaks. The only year that it was quite different was part of the 2011 season and 2012, under Chap and last game under Jones.

Chap was given more leeway in 2011, because we were losing again and the pressure had built to a crescendo. Why Khari Jones made the changes he did last game is hard to tell but it seemed as if Buono wanted a home playoff game bad enough, he allowed him to do more things. Buono likes things simple and he doesn't like change. What worked in the past should work in the present and will work in the future.

On defence, the same basically holds true. Buono is a four man rush, zone defence zealot just as he is a one running play, spread offence zealot. He won that way in Calgary and he won that way in his most successful seasons in 204-2007 here in B.C. What he chooses to forget is that he had way more talent most of the time during his success. There was no SMS in Calgary and they spent heavily and had Shivers brining in the best talent. In B.C. during those early successful seasons, he had Ackles connecting to the NFL pipeline as well as Obie. The notion that his scheme might be inferior would never be considered.

Dave Ritchie drove Buono nuts with his multiple formation, innovative, and aggressive defences in 2005-2007. But he needed Ritchie to win and Ritchie was not only a former Grey Cup winning coach but also a friend. Buono had to give Ritchie a lot more leeway than he would have liked. During games, Ritchie would have a bunch of defenders lined up at the line of scrimmage ready to blitz and Buono would be yelling from the sidelines "Get back, get back" and creating all kinds of confusion until Barrin Miles had enough and told Buono he had to butt out because the players didn't know what to do with that scenario.

But with Benevedes and Washington as defensive coordinators, all was well and we were back to playing passive zone simple defensive football. If Ritchie had Bighill, he would be a blitzing maniac. But under the Buono philosophy, we're using him as a zone pass defender and often as a deep safety.

South Pender is right. Our coordinators are seasoned now. They are not rookies. But their coaching careers have been heavily influenced by the Wally Way. Washington has only coached under Buono. Khari Jones coaching has been most heavily influenced by George Cortez, who learned the Wally Way when he became the OC under Wally in Calgary, and Buono. Therefore, they don't really know how to do it any differently. Even if Buono said to Khari - "Throw the scheme and playbook away and start fresh, he would mostly do the same stuff. If Buono said to Mark Washington " Take the gloves off" he would still be dropping Bighill into deep zone coverage and playing his simple passive style.

I'm guessing but If Mark Washington had come up to Buono, before this game and said "I want to spy Eliminian on Harris all game and cover him man to man rather than dropping into the hook zone on pass defence, Buono would have okayed it. But Washington nor Buono would have ever came up with the notion, because the thought would never enter their minds. Linebackers drop into zone coverage and cover the two hook areas is all they know.

Pointing to poor execution as a major contributor in the loss is not at all unreasonable. If we want to identify a single most significant reason for the loss, in my opinion it's turnovers, and, if we narrow this down further, it's Rainey's fumble with a little over 2 minutes remaining at the Bombers' 49 yard line that most directly cost us the game. South Pender.

Its good to read different opinions South Pender and I read your comments regarding Buono as well as his assistants 'being big boys' and have written my thoughts above.

The turnovers were crucial. We went into this game stating that avoiding turnovers and red zone success were our keys offensively in order to win this game. Jones made a number of changes this game. Those changes were mainly run game changes..we used the stretch play run, the jet sweep (Sinkfield) for the first time this season, the pitch toss, power sweep, a fake reverse -delay inside zone read, to name some. Jones changed some of Sinkfield's routes, added more motion and formations (including the old pure spread six receiver empty backfield formation) and threw in a screen pass and a tailback pass that didn't work but was a good play to insert for a different situation. He's also added some more tailback swing passes over the past three games.

But what he didn't change was the passing game attack enough. With the Bombers playing a lot of man/Cover 2 or 3, we needed more horizontal routes (high low crosses etc.) but we still were using our deep intermediate and long ball passing game. Its the same passing attack that Cortez used last year, only Jennings has quarterbacked all season in it so it looks different.

So lets have a closer look at the turnovers as South Pender points out because they were costly, as well as the poor game plan by the defence to not focus on Harris. The first turnover was a Jeremiah Johnson interception on a tailback throw off a sweep that Jones called. Obviously there were execution problems on the play. We started that offensive drive on our own 44 yard line. We had marched the football successfully to the Bombers 29 yard line. Jeremiah Johnson had just peeled off a 14 yard run. Why make that play call at that time.

Did Jones want to prove he was in the same league as LaPolice in terms of trick plays or what? We didn't need the play at that moment in time. We hadn't even set the play up. The Bombers defensive backs weren't playing any Cover 0, which is the purrfect defence for that play. The Bombers were not playing Cover 1, which is the next best defense. No, they were playing two deep and three deep zone behind press man coverage. The deep zone defenders are not going to get sucked in and come up on that play. It was a bad call and then poorly executed. We probably had not spent much practice time on it either.

The next turnover was a Jennings throw to Burnham in the second quarter. Heath jumped the route as the deep safety, with Burnham already being man covered as well. Have we ever asked Jennings to not throw into double coverage? No!! Even thought throwing into double coverage is usually a coaching No No. We encourage throwing into double coverage. Jennings does it all the time. Jennings usually throws purrfect strikes or Burnham or Arseneauz outfight the defensive backs for the ball. Is it a matter of execution? It would be on most teams. However, its how we execute this season on offence. If our coaches want the rewards of that, they also need to take part or most of the responsibility when it doesnt' work.

We had another close call on our next series as this time Jennings threw to Arseneaux on a similar play and Heath tried to jump it again. We knew the Bombers would be focused on Burnham and Arseneaux running any deep intermediate or deep routes and be in double coverage. They also had game tape on the type of routes they run. Its why I wrote this week that Jones should line up Burnham and Arseneauz at times on the outside, where they would be able to get away from the underneath linebacker coverage and also make it more difficult for the Bombers to double team their routes.

The third turnover happened in the third quarter. It was a Burnham fumble, when, after making a catch, he was destroyed by Loffler. The football was on our own 35 yard line and led to a Bomber field goal.

With less than 7 minutes left in the game we were up by 10 points, after a Leone field goal. Our defnence allowed the Bombers to drive the footnall from their own 35 yard line to our 1 yard line, before Bighill stopped Nichols short by inches on second and one, at our own 1 yard line. Fenner was called for a ticky tack illegal contact on that drive, when we thought we had the Bombers stopped. The Bombers also completed a 32 yard pass to Gurley, and tackled by Bighill, playing his now famous two deep safety spot.

There was 2:59 on the clock when Khari called a pass play on first down at our 35 yard line. Jennings was pass rushed, tried to escape to avoid the sack and then threw deep, with no underneath receiver in sight, and the pass was intercepted by Fogg, playing deep 1/3 safety, at the Bombers 50 yard line. He returned it to our 10 yard line and the Bombers then scored a touchdown.

When Rainey took the kickoff the game was tied, there was 2:21 on the clock and he made a fantastic run, and was cutting across the grain on the Bombers 49 yard line, with room to run. It was looking like we would go on to win the game. That's the exact moment that Lumbala's helmet connected with the football in Rainey's hands and the fumble took place. I sure don't blame Rainey for that play. After the Bombers drive the football for a field goal, Rainey, with 14 seconds left on the clock, makes another spectacular play and gets the football to the Winnipeg 54 yard line. But, there is only 3 seconds left on the clock.

So, no question South Pender, that turnovers really hurt in this game. Jennngs two interceptions hurt. Bad defensive tackling really hurt at times.

But one can see, if we could eliminate turnovers, improve our pass rush a little, game plan better on defence, make a few more adjustments on offence (we're getting closer on offence, based on last game only) and play call better, we still could beat anyone.

TBH I was prepared to give some kudos to Khari Jones for calling a more varied game with at least some sweeps, screens, and short passes until with the lead and less than 3 minutes left, he abandons the possession pass/run strategy and allows the long pass attempt which gets intercepted. Most high school coaches wouldn't call that play at that time. Worst call of the game and highlighted by a DB (might have been a LB but I don't have the stomach to re-watch the play to find out) blitz unabated to the QB. Jones should be embarrassed.

It was the wrong pass play. If we were going to pass, we needed to run a high percentage quick hitter. The last thing we needed was a sack. Jennings was trying to avoid that and not take a huge loss. We had no outlet. He should have tried to throw it away. Chap got his quarterbacks to do that, in those situations. Lulay was coached by Chap do do that. Lulay obviously isn't mentoring Jennings to do that. Jennings should have thrown it away. He hasn't been trained to do that, in that situation, even though he did the same thing in the game in Calgary. Lots of fingers can be pointed.

The more important question with 3 games remaining is "Can we change?". Can our coaches change enough? Do we have the right personell onour defensive line? Do we need to replace Fenner or do we need to give each of our two rookie defensive backs a vet to play beside (eg: Phillips with Gaitor and Stewart with Fenner. One thing for sure, we need to get Bighill out of the deep safety position. Hell, take a lineman out and put Thomson in there or drop Purifoy to safety. Bighill is a linebacker and a good one. Its dun and its on Washington.

[TheLionKing]

Lions get off to a quick start, then by mid season rolls around they sputter then they go into a tailspin toward the end of the season and limps into the playoffs only to be annihilated. Warts that appeared earlier in the season that should have been addressed were not and it comes back to bite them. I've seen this horror movies too many times in the decades I've been supporting this team. Once again, it's happening again.

[TheLionKing]

It was the wrong pass play. If we were going to pass, we needed to run a high percentage quick hitter. The last thing we needed was a sack. Jennings was trying to avoid that and not take a huge loss. We had no outlet. He should have tried to throw it away. Chap got his quarterbacks to do that, in those situations. Lulay was coached by Chap do do that. Lulay obviously isn't mentoring Jennings to do that. Jennings should have thrown it away. He hasn't been trained to do that, in that situation, even though he did the same thing in the game in Calgary. Lots of fingers can be pointed.

I concur. Jennings said that he was trying to throw it away. If in fact he was trying to throw it away, why would you want to do that to the wide side of the field where it can be picked off ? A smarter choice in my opinion is just throw it on the ground.

[dtrain]

"

dtrain"]

I'm a lifetime supporter, over 40 yrs financially supporting the team, recently over 10 yrs season ticket holder!

I 'support' the team , win or lose, where it counts, with my pocketbook!

This team has choked in every big western matchup this season at home, sending this season ticket holder home unhappy and unsatisfied!

Its frustrating for sure. Hope you'll keep supporting them. We need the CFL and the Lions. Its not always about wins and losses and you obviously know that or you wouldn't have been a Leo fan for 40 years. We had 12 seasons with a less than .500 record.

I just hate watching a team blow a game when they've played very hard for most of a game for a victory or a coach who knows what a team is going to do and then do nothing to try to take it away.

I also hate to see talent wasted. But there are some players on this Leo team that are truly worth attending a Leos game. Jennings, Rainey, Burnham, Arseneaux, (and Team 100, when we allow them to do what they do best) come to mind.

[Sir Purrcival]

Ok, Ok, lets not get at each other. I was as upset with the loss as anybody else and I had thoughts of writing off this team for the season too. I will continue to watch but after the last two losses coupled with some eerily similar kinds of losses at other points of the season, I have little optimism for this team in the playoffs. Every time I watch them on O, I find myself waiting for them to either turn it over, see them get stuffed on a short yardage play or bog down somewhere after getting inside the 10 yard line.

In short, it's not fun to watch when you keep expecting the other shoe to drop.

This team has exactly one kind of play where they look dangerous with any kind of regularity and that is with the long ball. Exciting to be sure but you can't expect to win games on them. Football is about a complete game coupled with balance in all areas of the game.

As it stand right now, we are weak in the following areas.
The Oline - is it players or coaching? A much discussed issue around here.
The kicking game - Leone isn't a FG kicker. He is a great punter.
The DLine - solid but not overwhelming. We have been looking for a dominant rush in how long now?
Short Yardage - might as well flip a coin on this when it is 3 and a yard.
Running - somedays it seems alright, others meh The tandem idea has worked better than I expected.
Defensive secondary - ok, i know that they have been hurt by some key injuries but man oh man, sometimes you just have to come up big and mostly they haven't especially right after they have done something good on O. Last night, we took a 10 point lead and then Winnipeg marched down the field right away and score like a hot knife through butter.
Coaching - like has been discussed quite eloquently by Blitz. Where players need support, we give tired strategies and unimaginative thinking.

Maybe next year.... or the year after that, or the year after that.

[Blitz]

It was the wrong pass play. If we were going to pass, we needed to run a high percentage quick hitter. The last thing we needed was a sack. Jennings was trying to avoid that and not take a huge loss. We had no outlet. He should have tried to throw it away. Chap got his quarterbacks to do that, in those situations. Lulay was coached by Chap do do that. Lulay obviously isn't mentoring Jennings to do that. Jennings should have thrown it away. He hasn't been trained to do that, in that situation, even though he did the same thing in the game in Calgary. Lots of fingers can be pointed.

I concur. Jennings said that he was trying to throw it away. If in fact he was trying to throw it away, why would you want to do that to the wide side of the field where it can be picked off ? A smarter choice in my opinion is just throw it on the ground.

It would have been smarter and I've seen him do that before. However, a deliberate grounding call would be a loss of down and a penalty. He has to throw the football past the line of scrimmage and there has to be a receiver close to it. I only saw the play once on television but I didn't see any receiver closer to Jennings. He was also escaping to his right, to the wide side of the field, so if my memory is right (and it may not be) it would have been impossible to throw the football to the other side of the field.

Lions get off to a quick start, then by mid season rolls around they sputter then they go into a tailspin toward the end of the season and limps into the playoffs only to be annihilated. Warts that appeared earlier in the season that should have been addressed were not and it comes back to bite them. I've seen this horror movies too many times in the decades I've been supporting this team. Once again, it's happening again. TheLionKing

Sums it up concisely and accurately for so many of our seasons. The reason is obvious. Simple schemes that are predictable (and not always sensible) cost us as a season progresses. Sir Percival mentions balance in a scheme and that is a good way of putting it as our 'warts that are not addressed come back to bite them'. By the time a Buono team reaches the playoffs, no matter how talented, the odds of an upset increases.

However, this is still the most exciting football league and Lions games have been mostly exciting all season, even the losses. Only the Calgary game at home was a drag. I'll support our Leos win or lose. There are some outstanding players on our Leos team that are very worth watching and also deserving of being watched play the game of football with such courage and determination. Just watching Burnham outleap two defenders at full speed or Rainy juke a defender out of his cleats is worth it.

Its fairly easy to be an arm chair critic after game, with the benefit of hindsight. But truly, there are a number of Lionbackers who I would have more faith in, than our present Leos coordinators, to come up with a general game plan to take away another team's strengths or exploit their weaknesses. That's not the way it should be.

[Blitz]

This team has exactly one kind of play where they look dangerous with any kind of regularity and that is with the long ball. Exciting to be sure but you can't expect to win games on them. Football is about a complete game coupled with balance in all areas of the game.

As it stand right now, we are weak in the following areas.
The Oline - is it players or coaching? A much discussed issue around here.
The kicking game - Leone isn't a FG kicker. He is a great punter.
The DLine - solid but not overwhelming. We have been looking for a dominant rush in how long now?
Short Yardage - might as well flip a coin on this when it is 3 and a yard.
Running - somedays it seems alright, others meh The tandem idea has worked better than I expected.
Defensive secondary - ok, i know that they have been hurt by some key injuries but man oh man, sometimes you just have to come up big and mostly they haven't especially right after they have done something good on O. Last night, we took a 10 point lead and then Winnipeg marched down the field right away and score like a hot knife through butter.
Coaching - like has been discussed quite eloquently by Blitz. Where players need support, we give tired strategies and unimaginative thinking.

Maybe next year.... or the year after that, or the year after that.

You've got me thinking Sir Percival.

O Line: Its offensive scheme, blocking scheme, play calling, Dorazio. Would prefer Vaillencourt at right guard. Johnson is solid but not dominating. Personell is good enough to get it done. The left side of Steward and Olifioye are the strength of our offensive line - that's why we usually run to the right side.

Kicking Game: Said enough in earlier posts. Leone is going to cost us a playoff game, if this continues.

D Line: Not good enough personnel wise. Westerman is our only tackle getting it done. Allen is a waste. We need to give Menard more reps. We need a dominant nose tackle type to create double teams or offensive lines get to our linebackers and block them on running plays at times. Can't get consistent pressure with a four man rush. Bazzie looks spent. Brooks is not the same player as the start of this year and last year.

Secondary: You can't expect to throw in two rookies more than half way through a season, and play them together on the boundary side and not have some growing pains. However, Gaitor played well at boundary halfback Yell got hurt. If Yell comes back we'll be ok on the boundary. Fenner is not good enough to start right now. We probably should go with Jeremy Harris right now in this next game or it will be too late. Edem and Stewart have not had good seasons. Edem played more aggressively this last game.

Short Yardage: Wally runs the Jumbo Unit - always has. I don't think we have a problem on third and one, other than Wally will not go for it too often. Our percentage on third and one is very good. I'm more worried about second and 2. We keep failing on it, no matter who is the tailback. We need to go man blocking on second and two, with a lead blocker (and play action off it if the defence stacks it)

Running Back. Its a committee. Johnson and Allen are fine. Rainey adds a special dimension when he is in the game. Adding a jet sweep to Sinkfield, which I hoped we would add to our playbook 3 games ago is now part of our arsenal. Sinkfield got 21 yards on the play with his introductory carry.

However, watching Harris run against us and receive against us in the past two games shows he was being taken for granted too much here - and he's a National as well. Harris had 153 combined yards against us on Friday night. He had 80 yards in receiving and also had a 70 yd. catch and run touchdown called back. He has caught 57 passes so far for Winnipeg this season, and he missed some games due to injury. We need more screen plays and play action dump passes for Allen and Johnson. We introduced 4 new running plays last game. If we continue with them, our running backs will not be held back by scheme.

Coaching: Needs to improve, in terms of scheme, game planning, play calling. Jones made some good changes last game. It provides a dash of hope. Washington is regressing. He needs to step back and take a fresh look. His game planning is terrible, making his in-game adjustments look better than they are. You take away a team's strengths. That is the one of the first things you do. coaching at any level, amateur or pro. They Buono's guys. They are using Buono's favored schemes in terms of systems - defensive is drop a lot into zone coverage and blitz only occasionally and the spread offensive scheme we've run forever. It really needs to improve. Winnipeg out coached us in both games.

[maxlion]

I agree with many of the comments posted here about Wally's shortcomings. I would just add that, despite these shortcomings, he remains a very good coach with an unmatched record of consistent success over many years.

His method seems to be to delegate systems to his assistants and instill an organizational approach to discipline and attention to detail. It works to an extent, and results in championships and wins on a greater than average frequency.

This year we have been anything but conservative in our approach, which was the criticism in years past. For me, I have enjoyed this year more than most, have many questions about our playoff hopes, but am not totally discouraged either.

[Blitz]

I agree with many of the comments posted here about Wally's shortcomings. I would just add that, despite these shortcomings, he remains a very good coach with an unmatched record of consistent success over many years.

His method seems to be to delegate systems to his assistants and instill an organizational approach to discipline and attention to detail. It works to an extent, and results in championships and wins on a greater than average frequency.

This year we have been anything but conservative in our approach, which was the criticism in years past. For me, I have enjoyed this year more than most, have many questions about our playoff hopes, but am not totally discouraged either.

I'm not completely discouraged either.

Wally has brought the positive things I anticipated he would bring with his return to the sidelines. First of all, there would be cohesion between the GM and the HC because Wally was both again...so the problems created by Buono's inability to let go of control as the GM only would be gone. Secondly, Buono would have a presence with his players, due to his reputation. This was a young team that needed that. We would have a team that played hard and together and that has happened. Buono sets standards and has high expectation of his players. There is excellent team spirit on this Leos 2016 team. There are no chemistry issues.

From a tactical perspective I anticipated some headaches. Buono is not a tactician. Buono played linebacker in his CFL playing days, when defenses were simple. It was basically rush four, three linebackers, five defensive backs, play zone, blitz rarely. Buono was hired as the HC of Calgary in 1990 with only one season as a defensive coordinator. That is very rare. It didn't give Buono much tactical background before he became a HC. In Buono's first season as a HC in Calgary, he gave the offence to Hufnagel to coordinate. Hufnagel introduced the innovative spread offence in his first season as an OC and created his playbook. Flutie joined the Stamps two years later, Garcia was the backup. The rest is history.

Buono's first six seasons as a Head Coach from 1990-96 were his most successful seasons. Hufnagel coached the offence during those first six seasons and the Calgary spread offence played a very important role in that success. Therefore, Buono fell in love with it and every offensive coordinator since (with one exception) has used that spread offensive playbook created by Hufnagel. As an offensive coordinator under Buono, you had to be and have to be a disciple of that offensive playbook from the the early 90's in Calgary. Every Leo coordinator hired by Buono has used it since, from Chap to Kruck to Dorazio, back to Chap, Jones, Cortez, and back to Jones again,

The only exception was in 2003-2004. Burratto was our OC, when Buono was hired as our HC in B.C. in 2003. Burratto was not a spread offence disciple. Approximately 2/3 of the way through the 2004 season (with Printers tearing up the CFL and having a great relationship with Burratto) Buono ordered Burratto to the spotters booth and brought Chap, our receivers coach, (trained in the spread offence from his earlier Calgary experience) down to the sidelines to call the offensive plays and coordinate the offence for the rest of the season and playoffs. That is how important that spread playbook is to Buono.

Another example to show how important that spread playbook is to Buono was the 2015 season. Before training camp Tedford announced that we would have a tight end style offence, Tedford signed two big tight ends - 250 pound guys who had played the position. It never happened. The big tight end would only be used as an outside slot back for most of the 2015 season before the idea was completely abandoned.

It may be baffling for some fans that a new Head Coach like Tedford publically says he is coming in with a new tight end system and then it never happens. It didn't surprise me. If Buono is our Leos GM or our GM/HC in B.C. you run the spread offence from that old playbook - period. Hypothetically, even if we ran out of receivers due to injury, Buono would have a 325 pound offensive lineman lined up wide in the old Calgary spread. Its his religion. You don't make alterations to it either.

Wally is a very conservative coach overall. We know that. He will punt, rather than go for it on third and one in the opposition's side of the field. Buono has often punted in the past, even when we had a very good field goal kicker and our offence was in position for a makeable field goal. Wally worries more about what could go wrong that what can go right (but there is an exception). Buono's defensive coordinators have also been required to buy into Wallys' conservative defensive philosophy. Rush four (or three now), drop the linebackers into hook zone areas, and play passive zone defence (blitz rarely and conservatively)

That has been the style of defense played under all of Buono's teams in both Calgary and B.C for 23 seasons with two exceptions. Those exceptions were Dave Ritchie, who was an aggressive and innovative defensive coordinator for our Leos from 2005-2007. He drove Buono nuts. The other exception was Rich Stubler (who really had a lot of influence on Benevedes in 2011) and who was our defensive coordinator from 2012-2013. Buono fired him afer the 2013 season.

Its also a fact that our best defenses were Ritchie and Stubler's defenses. We set a ton of defensive records in 2012 under Stubler. Our defence and not our offence, was the key to our success from 2005-2007. But Buono was much more comfortable with Benevedes and Washington because they will coach the style of defence that Buono is comfortable with and wants.

But you are bang on maxlion for pointing out that Buono has not been conservative in his approach this season (but I'll note that statement only qualifies only for our offence). It's not just this season either. Buono doesn't have a conservative approach to offence. Its an anomaly seems strange at first because it's out of character. The spread playbook of Buono's (really Hufnagel's 90's version) is not a conservative offence. It never has been, at least in terms of the passing attack aspect of it. Its not only this season either. Buono let Printers attack. He let Jarious throw long bombs all season long in 2007. He allows Jennings to attack. Buono encourages his quarterbacks to run the football.

You have to go back to that early 1990's success in Calgary to understand why. Huff threw the football a lot with his new spread offence in those early seasons, under Buono in Calgary. Buono was a new HC who had no offensive experience. Flutie ran a lot and very successfully. That offensive style and success made a strong impression on Buono early in his Head Coaching career. It became an important element of Buono's coaching Bible.

So, here we have this ultra-conservative Head Coach in Buono, favoring a wide open passing offence and who even encourages his young quarterback to throw into double coverage, if he thinks Jennings can make the play. But its not just because Jennings is the quarterback. He allowed the same thing from Printers and Jackson. He would have allowed the same thing from Dickenson and Pierce but they had different styles.

It doesn't make sense unless you understand Buono's history. Buono is still rigid as hell, but offensively, he's only rigid in terms of using the old Huff spread offence but not conservative at all regarding the passing attack or his quarterback's aggressiveness. It can almost seem kind of strange to let Jennings throw downfield like a gunslinger and then not gamble on 3rd and less ythan one. But its actually not. Its all part of the Buono Way. There is a saying that we carry our childhood around with us every day. Buono carries his Head Coaching childhood of the early 1990's with him every day.

It usually takes a lot of pressure and circumstance to get Buono to be more flexible. But it happened in 2011, when part way through that season, we saw Chap make some very good changes to our scheme, which included tight end sets, two back sets, and a lot of misdirection play action. (the Huff spread was an ace back five receiver offence or a six receiver, no back offence).

In 2013, in the last third of that season, with our running game struggling badly, we saw Chap/Dorazio get us away from the inside zone read and go two back I formation at times with both Harris and Logan in the backfield and we saw Chap lining up two backs and two receivers in a four man I formation just before the snap of the football as well as a lot of motion prior to the snap, with a receiver being a lead blocker for some running plays. Innovation can happen but things have to feel desperate first.

Last game, we saw five new running plays that we had not used this year. They were the stretch play, the power sweep, the delayed inside zone read, coming off motion for a jet sweep, the jet sweep to Sinkfield for 21 yards (the last time we used the jet sweep was when Chap was here), the quick toss, and a counter inside zone read. We also called a screen play for Johnson and a tailback throw off a sweep. The play was a disaster (wrong call for the Bombers defence at the time, wrong situation, was not set up properly) but the play is a good one to have. Buono really wanted to win the game and get a home playoff game in order for those changes to happen.

So there is hope for change and adaption. It usually has to be forced on Buono with pressure of some type (eg: another terrible start to the season in 2011, a terrible mid season slump in 2013, a feeling of an absolute need to win to get a home playoff game in our last game.

Sometimes good can come out of adversity. It did in 2011. We went on to win the Grey Cup. It did in 2013. Our offence had four 200 rushing games to end the 2013 season, including the playoff game that we should have won in Regina. Perhaps good things will still happen this season.

I'm not worried too much about our offence. We[re still scoring a lot of points. Jennings, Rainey, Burnham and Arseneaux are very talented. Gore is very solid. Our offensive line is decent. We just need to cut down the offensive turnovers by not being Manny/Burnham centric and make a couple of adaptions should defences overconcentrate on them. Sinkfield had a good game against the Bombers, was our leading receiver in the game, and looks like he is getting in sync. We have a lot of offensive weapons and talent. If Wally allows Jones to continue to make adaptions and Jones can make a few adaptions our talent on offence is good enough to win a Grey Cup.

Its our defence I'm more worried about. We're a couple of players short, talent wise. But its Washington who is worrying me the most. He just is not game planning to take away the opposition offensive strengths. His use of Bighill as a safety is not wise. If he feels that he needs to play two deep safety, behind Gaitor and Fenner on the boundary side and Stewart and Phillips on the wide side, then use two safeties. We can use Purifoy and Edem or Thompson and Edem or Fraser and Edem. Let Bighill and Sol E do what they do best.

I'm realistic but still hopeful. I certainly haven't given up on this season.

[SammyGreene]

Always a great read how Blitz breaks down these games. Others as well.

I was steamed after Friday’s game. We keep hearing how they are learning from their mistakes yet continue to make them. Wasn’t one of the things pointed out a year ago how the Lions led in the 4th quarter of a number of games and ended up losing?

Now that I have had a chance to calm down and put things into better perspective, I think the Lions schedule has really worked against them. Their record was inflated with so many games against Eastern opponents through mid-September. The league hasn’t been this imbalanced for a long, long time.

What we are finding out is the Lions are probably the 4th best team in the division. They are damn close to Winnipeg but being swept on consecutive weeks exposed where they are vulnerable.

I think they will lose again this week to an Edmonton team that I believe is No. 2 in the league right now. Mike Reilly is significantly better than Matt Nicholls and it could be a long afternoon for a suspect BC defence. The Eskimos defence is also playing very well.

Hopefully at least a split against the suddenly surging Riders to finish 10-8 or maybe 11-7 with a sweep. Then take our chances in a cross-over that looks much more favourable than previous years — certainly better than potentially going through Edmonton and Calgary.

The record would be a significant improvement on a year ago and this is an exciting offensive team with a terrific young quarterback and some dynamic game breaking receivers. But the Lions still need work and improvement in some areas to close the gap on Calgary and others, mainly the defensive side of the ball.

As David pointed out, they desperately need at least one impact defensive lineman. Turner did more Friday than what the Lions have been getting out of Brooks, who has been major disappointment the last couple of months after being such a force early on.

When all is said and done, who knew that 20-18 win over the Stampeders way back on June 25 would be the Lions most impressive result so far. Remember how well the defence played and how we ran the ball down the Stampeders' throats to protect the 2 point lead? Ugh.