Video: Bombers Zone Blocking vs Unprepared Lions Defence

[WestCoastJoe]

http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/ff17 ... Lionsc.flv

Here are 3 clips I made from the TSN feed and downloaded to PhotoBucket.

The Bombers zone blocking is devastating, and the Lions look unprepared to meet it. The defenders perform their assignments and the Bombers blockers seem to go to exactly the places they expect the Lions defenders to be (predictability).

Also, the defensive philosophy (conservative) looks ineffective against this blocking scheme. The Alouettes were more aggressive in attacking the LOS with both LBs and Linemen. When Bishop went behind centre, our DBs should have tightened up to provide closer run support.

IMO all about predictability and ineffective scheme and insufficiently detailed game planning.
................

Fred Reid at the 17

*Johnson locks up with left tackle

*Williams is double teamed by centre (angle block) and left guard; guard leaves to double team Hunt

*Hunt is double teamed, but does not hold his ground at the point of attack even before the 2x (key blocking at the point of attack, no support for Hunt)

*Banks, a key defender on this play at LB, takes himself out of the play with a wide blind blitz and is unblocked

* Foley is sealed by one blocker at point of attack

* 26 makes excellent lead block on Phillips

* Armour, a key defender on this play takes himself out of the play by going to the wrong hole (bad read)

These defenders were inadequately prepared to face this formidable blocking/running attack
................

Fred Reid at the 32 (should be listed as 28)

* Foley wide left protecting against outside runs that do not come; the runs are inside zone and off tackle

* Johnson does nice job taking on left tackle, helps stack up run for 3 yard gain (Hoo Rah)

* A McK helps stack up the run as he is blocked by pulling right guard

* Glatt takes deep angle in moving right but helps stack up run, unblocked because he is deep enough and makes good read

* Armour attacks the hole and helps stack up the play, unblocked as above with Glatt

* Williams is sealed inside

* Hunt takes the gap and then slides to his right in great pursuit backing up the play

An all-out defensive "attack" slows up this run for a 3 yard gain; penetration, mobility and good LB reads, plus Reid stumbles over an outstretched leg, but the Lions played it well.

Terna Nande would have been valuable in this game, more valuable than an extra DB or even Gary Butler (a DE but useless). How about some 3 - 4 defence (scheme) to throw something different at the running attack?

............

Fred Reid at the 35

This is when it looked scary for the Lions. Huge hole at the left tackle zone. No defence ready to face it.

* Glatt takes himself out of play covering the unused wide side, and is sealed

* Armour goes to the wrong hole and is sealed

* Hunt holds his gap, moves to his right down the line 7 yards and almost makes a fantastic play

* Foley is wide left (his) and closes down hard but too late

* Williams double teamed by left guard and centre, once secure guard leaves to block Armour

* Johnson double teamed by left tackle and tight end (Johnson almost makes the play anyway); tight end leaves to block McKenzie

I shudder to think how this game would have played out with lesser personnel on the Lions. Full credit to the Bombers for a league leading rushing attack. An attack that the Lions were woefully unprepared to meet. IMO this is all about scheme and coaching. IMO it is not about personnel. I put this one on the coaches.

Hunt and Williams were double teamed throughout the game, as was Johnson quite often. Our LBs did not know how to provide support. The front 7, as a group, did not attack; they were too passive, but I would suggest they were doing as they had been coached to do. With an unproven, inconsistent QB, Bishop, facing them, I think our DBs should have been prepared by the coaches to provide more run support. Miles did have his nose in on tackles all night.

Outdated schemes. Conservative approach. Predictability.

All of this of course is IMO. On the coaches, not the players.

Lose both pre-season games. Get pounded by the Stampeders. Get pounded by the Ti-Cats, twice. Get pounded by the Bombers. At some point, this has to be on the coaches. We still have lots of all-star quality players. Time to take a look at our schemes, our predictabilty, and our conservatism. Those come from the coaches. Not advocating coaching change mid-season. Stay with these people. But time to look at those 3 factors, which can be changed: schemes, predictabilty and conservatism.

[Toppy Vann]

Where are the new young assistants who will be the next Head Coaches in this league? I sure don't think Benevides is ready nor is Chapdelaine.

This is concerning as this should be something that young Canadian assistants can aspire too. WB is giving these young assistants every chance but clearly they are far short of the mark in their current roles.

Granted the HC 's role is less x and 0's than leading and managing and building a team and organization that includes good personnel in all spots but to get to HC you have to have usually some success as an assistant.

Right now MB and JC are letting down WB big time. Players aren''t helping either.

[WestCoastJoe]

Granted the HC 's role is less x and 0's than leading and managing and building a team and organization that includes good personnel in all spots but to get to HC you have to have usually some success as an assistant.

Right now MB and JC are letting down WB big time. Players aren''t helping either.

I agree with what you say, Toppy.

And I would add this: IMO Benevides and Chapdelaine design the game plan and make the play calls in the very style Wally wants. It is his philosophy we see on the field as plays unfold.

It does look like Benevides might be too inexperienced and in over his head. Chapdelaine has lots of experience now, but he might be just as conservative, predictable and stuck in his ways as Buono. Aside from the run blocking, it is hard to tell about Dorazio's philosophy as Offensive Coordinator since he does not call the plays for the O. Besides Wally has been the mentor for these coaches for many years. We don't really know how independent their ideas are.

As an outside observer, what I suspect is that Wally has stayed too long with schemes that have been surpassed, and that his usual personnel advantage no longer exists.

I also suspect that the more successful coaches (Trestman and Hufnagel last year) have risen to a new level in their game-planning: making very specific attacks against certain players in certain situtions. If the odds they play (that such a player will be in such a position, playing it in such a way) materialize, the play is dynamite. If it does not, they are playing with no advantage on the particular play. It doesn't look to me like the Lions have such detailed, specific attack plans. Fewer isolations. Fewer attacks against individuals or tendencies. As said a number of times: it seems to me the Lions have more of an emphasis on doing the same old thing but trying to do it well enough so the opposition cannot stop it.

[Toppy Vann]

Wally had good service from Kruck-Dorazio. It only went predictable when JC returned. Now they need the unpredictable with the league knowing what they do so well and the team struggling again to find its way.

Benny yes basked in the good work that Dave Ritchie who is a good x and o HC did here and now that personnel has changed it sucks.

Hey where is Reggie Hunt... not sure he'd be a run stopper yesterday either.

Don't forget though that Hufnagel bit it in NY as he too didn't make the changes they wanted in the offensive plays he was calling.

JC has no sense of how to tactically strike an opponent and vary the themes it seems . It worked when he had the best offence in the league up front and in the backfield and it was executed by all QBs including Buck who was #3 and 2.

[Coast Mountain Lion]

I have nothing more to add except that shouldn't the second video be "Fred Reid from the 28", not the 32?

And the left receiver looked dangerously close to being offside on the first two videos.

[Rammer]

Being out coached by Kelly certainly has to wake up the Lions coaching crew.

[WestCoastJoe]

I have nothing more to add except that shouldn't the second video be "Fred Reid from the 28", not the 32?

And the left receiver looked dangerously close to being offside on the first two videos.

Thanks.

I mis-labelled that one. It is the 28.

[pennw]

And they've been calling Mike kelly a dumb coach . What does that make our coaches ? He must have watched that Ticat film and seen how they did for 2 games and thought that they cold do likewise too since WB and company could not adjust to the Ticat game even in the second game when they had film to study from the first game .
Mike Kelly also did it with a QB who was rejected by several teams already , proving you can win with a lesser QB and good strategy . Something that should be noted by those slagging our QB's constantly .

[Toppy Vann]

And they've been calling Mike kelly a dumb coach . What does that make our coaches ? He must have watched that Ticat film and seen how they did for 2 games and thought that they cold do likewise too since WB and company could not adjust to the Ticat game even in the second game when they had film to study from the first game .
Mike Kelly also did it with a QB who was rejected by several teams already , proving you can win with a lesser QB and good strategy . Something that should be noted by those slagging our QB's constantly .

At least some of fans get it. You need a guy pulling the trigger but unless he has some decent team mates the QB can't do it alone.

I forget how many runs in that game by the Bombers were runs of over 10 yards. TSN mentioned the number at one point in the game and wow, it was high.

[TheLionKing]

Being out coached by Kelly certainly has to wake up the Lions coaching crew.

I wish it was so but I highly doubt it with this group.

[cromartie]

We've taken hits all over the place. MB was a very good Special Teams coach and evaluator of Non Import Talent. As a DC, he makes a good ST coach and evaluator of Non Import Talent.

The less said the better at this point about Chap. I'll reiterate that he would probably excel as a Head Coach at the CIS level. If you want some to implement a staid system/program, he's you're guy. As a game day mind...not really very good though, for the record, I'm seeing a wider variety of formations this year than I've seen in previous seasons.

My confidence in the Player Personnel department is waning as well. We held an extra two tryout camps this season and they didn't net us a great deal.

I suppose we're due for a season like this. Just ride it out, I suppose, wait for someone new to come in on the business side and see what happens.

Wally had good service from Kruck-Dorazio. It only went predictable when JC returned.

Two problems with this statement:

1) It leave out the contributions of Jamie Barisi.

2) That offense was predictable also, roll out Jarious, throw deep. Power run. However you had the offensive line to back up the power running game at it's base, and the defense to hold teams out of the end zone until the Bad Jarious turned into the Good Jarious. Both of those things are gone now.

[WestCoastJoe]

Buono put down the linebacking mess against Winnipeg as a case of faulty positioning and Saturday, after replaying every one of the Bombers' runs, effectively refuted the contention the problem was one of bad scheming. Not that the coach was trying to suggest the problems facing the Lions are those created by someone else.

"Maybe what I've done is I've miscalculated the improvement of other teams," Buono admitted. - Lowell Ullrich

"faulty positioning"

In a 4 - 3 defence. So he could be saying the LBs are going to the wrong spots, or they are not going to the right spots. Or they are getting out of position once they get to the right spot as they are being blocked. Or are they are doing what they have been coached to do, and the "scheme" is inadequate to the task?

eg. In basketball, let's say a defence plays a 2 - 3 zone against a team with great 3 - point shooters. That would be a bad scheme. No matter how much the defenders hustle back and forth they are not going to be able to challenge the shooters on the outside: bad scheme. Better go to man-to-man defence.

eg. How about mixing up the schemes. Some coaches advocate running a 3 - 4 defence against zone blocking. The LBs are harder to reach for the O Linemen and the combinations of defensive attacks are more varied.

eg. How about 8 men in the box?

In our 4 - 3, the starting position of the LBs and the D Linemen is predictable. The movements are predictable. And the techniques used seem predictable. The Bombers guards could pull and find a defender had moved to the exact spot the guard would hope to find him. Predictable set. Predictable movements. Predictable techniques. Do we attack the O Line with 7 or even 8 men, ever? Or do we passively play the gaps? Over and over? Do we have our safety or a DB challenge the LOS? Do we stunt our linemen? It seems offences know exactly what we will play, and how we will play it right down to individual technique. How often do we rotate sides for Foley and Johnson? Do we have blitzes that catch the offence by surprise? No? Then they must be predictable. Do other teams successfully blitz us? Yes? Then they must be somewhat unpredictable.

Are we doing as much as we can to be unpredictable? Should we be doing more? I would say we should be doing more.

IMO we should be more aggressive in all of our schemes. Less conservative. More of an attack philosophy.

"Maybe what I've done is I've miscalculated the improvement of other teams," Buono admitted.

I think this is true. The standard of coaching seems to have risen greatly in the last couple of years. Teams are being forced to adapt. Teams are being forced to use subtlety, deception and variety in their plays. Power, in your face, football is being found wanting.

Our attitude on the Lions is like a former President of the U.S. said: "Stay the course."

So, yes, the linebacker play was horrendous, but no, the Lions aren't going to do anything about it largely. No airlift. No navel-gazing as to whether the coaches might be able to adjust their schemes so as to find improvements. Nothing. Nada.

Buono took reporters through every single Winnipeg running play Saturday. The film doesn't lie. JoJuan Armour and Javy Glatt couldn't possibly be given good grades. Ricky Foley got caught out of position on containment more than once as well.

No need for the Alouettes to look at the newest game tape. Any tape from the last few years should do.

And it would seem Buono has the attitude of baseball coach Don Zimmer, who said, after a big loss: "Well, we coached them good, but they sure did play bad."

Are we to believe the linebacking inadequacy was all the fault of McKenzie, Armour, Glatt and Banks? Nothing to do with the schemes or how they are coached to be run?

Perhaps it is just possible also that a different scheme with all of the front 7 in attacking mode rather than passive mode would have more success than what we saw Friday. If one is going to hang it on the LBs, one cannot leave out the D Line in its criticism. What I saw was constant double-teams with angle blocks on Williams, Hunt and often Johnson. Where is the D lineman that can dominate against that? Did we use run blitzes? Safety blitz? DB blitz? Did we loop our D Linemen? Did we slant all 4 D Linemen hard into the gaps? Or did we passively hold and try to protect?

Predictable and conservative. With no changes in primary schemes planned.

[Hambone]

Listening to Chris Burns talking to Rick Ball at halftime he talked about Benevides saying they expected the Bombers to do something different. He indicated the run scheme the Bombers were using was something they had done a little bit with early in the season but hadn't utilized for a few games. So the Lions were looking at something that wouldn't have shown up on recent game tapes. He also talked about how unusually deep the Bomber RBs were starting and thinking that was giving them more time to read the holes, or read the BC LBs. The Bombers do employ some things no other team in the league uses, basically an old fashioned formation with the QB taking the ball behind the centre as opposed to shotgun. That they ran effectively for the first half maybe shouldn't be a huge surprise. That the Lions were unable to make any adjustments to slow them down in the second half is terribly disturbing. As much as the Bombers profess to having a solid run game it too has been all over the map. Reid had 167 against Calgary 2 weeks ago and 260 this week. Entering this week only once in the previous 4 weeks did he rush for more than 50 yards. With the Lions' run defence seemingly having settled down after Armour's arrival and Bishop, who is far more known for his passing arm, theoretically being more comfortable with Winnipeg's offence did the Leos prepare too much for an expected passing game and not enough for a potential run oriented offence?

[WestCoastJoe]

Good points, Hambone.

I expect the Bombers rushing attack is evolving for the better. It looks like they are using the Denver Broncos zone blocking schemes which have revolutionized things in the NFL. The zone blocking requires a lot of coaching for the O Line. Once it gets working, they obviously get to enjoy the results.

Defences are just now having more success stopping the zone blocking. IMO it requires a very aggressive approach. You have to take some things away. You have to mix things up. You have to attack the LOS with more than 4 men. If you are passive, IMO this scheme will kill you. Just as it did on Friday.

Should we excuse our coaching staff if they got out-coached again? Perhaps. Should we excuse them if they do not adapt to a changing environment? Perhaps not.

[Oiler]

The BC defensive coach was thoroughly out coached. To not make any type of adjustment even late is inexcusable.