Lions-Eskimos post-game stats and comments

[B.C.FAN]

PASSING

JENNINGS, Jonathon 16/28 57.1% 278 2 2 68

RUSHING

JOHNSON, Jeremiah 8 41 5.1 21 0
RAINEY, Chris 2 21 10.5 14 0
JENNINGS, Jonathon 3 14 4.7 7 0
BURNHAM, Bryan 1 -7 -7.0 -7 0

RECEIVING

ARCENEAUX, Emmanuel 7 164 23.4 68 2
GORE, Shawn 3 35 11.7 18 0
JOHNSON, Jeremiah 2 29 14.5 15 0
IANNUZZI, Marco 2 21 10.5 15 0
BURNHAM, Bryan 1 19 19.0 19 0
RAINEY, Chris 1 10 10.0 10 0
SINKFIELD, Terrell 0 0 0 0 0
LUMBALA, Rolly 0 0 0 0 0

[B.C.FAN]

DEFENCE
PLAYER DT ST QS INT FR FF
BIGHILL, Adam 12 0 1 0 0 0
ELIMIMIAN, Solomon 10 0 0 0 0 0
STEWART, Brandon 9 0 0 0 0 0
GAITOR, Anthony 4 0 0 1 0 0
EDEM, Mike 4 0 0 0 0 0
FENNER, Chandler 3 1 0 0 0 0
WESTERMAN, Jabar 3 0 0 0 0 0
PHILLIPS, Ryan 2 0 0 0 0 0
BROOKS, Mic'hael 2 0 0 0 0 0
IANNUZZI, Marco 1 0 0 0 0 0
THOMPSON, Anthony 1 0 0 0 0 0
BAZZIE, Alex 1 0 0 0 0 0
ALLEN, Darius 1 0 0 0 0 0
ROH, Craig 1 0 1 0 0 0
PURIFOY, Loucheiz 1 0 1 0 0 1
ONTKO, Cameron 0 3 0 0 0 0
CLARKE, Adrian 0 1 0 0 0 0

[Blitz]

Our Leos lose to the Eskimos in a very poor performance offensively.

We activated Sinkfield, used him in the outside slot, threw to him once on the first pass of the game, which he dropped, and then used him mostly on possession routes. We never even attempted to use him deep. It was just plug and play. Way to use that speed.

We didn't run the football and mostly blocked poorly for it. Our pass protection against a four man stunting defensive line was poor.

Jennings completed 16/28 for 278 yds. (57.1% average)

Same old boring spread passing offence that requires Jennings to make purrfect throws while under pressure. Edmonton played a lot of man with two deep zone underneath, with a basic four man pass rush with some end/tackle stunts.

Edmonton had our hitch screen to Burnham so well scouted and it was so predictable that Jennings had to pull it down once to avoid an interception and Burnham was dropped for a 7 yard loss the next time we tried it.

Arseneaux had 168 yds in receiving on 7 receptions but our receivers dropped way too many passes and struggled to get open most of the game.

We ignored Rainey in the flat too often when he was in at tailback.

Fabian couldn't block anyone, we took way too many penalties, and our offence was completely out of sync after our opening quarter, when Jennings threw 2 purrfect deep balls.

Defensively, we couldn't stop the Edmonton run. Shakiri Bell ran for 108 yds. Gaitor and Fenner played very well and Fenner couldn't be faulted on Bowman's touchdown pass on a post with no safety help. Gaitor made a very good interception.

Reilly threw for 300 yards on 24/31, for a 77.4% completion average. He mostly exploited our wide side of the field, where Stewart and Phillips play. Reilly also had way too much time to throw the football and we could only get pressure on him with a blitz and even that was not effective at times.

We blew a 14 point lead and we deserved to lose.

[B.C.FAN]

The Eskimos wanted this game more. Despite falling behind quickly, they fought back and dominated the line of scrimmage, established a running game and stole momentum from the Lions.

The Lions started well. Jonathon Jennings hit Manny Arceneaux for six passes for 140 yards and two TDs through the first quarter and the first play of the second quarter. But Arceneaux wasn't targeted for the rest of the half and had only one catch in the second half.

Shakir Bell did a great job making tacklers miss, picking up 108 yards on the ground. Mike Reilly hit a couple of deep passes to Adarius Bowman.

The Lions shot themselves in the foot with a lot of holding and procedure penalties, but those were mainly because they couldn't handle the Esks' aggressive front seven. Edmonton started playing man on Arceneaux but switched to a lot of zone on top and man underneath, and that frustrated Jonathon Jennings, who completed 8 of his first 9 passes for 165 yards and 2 TDs and went 8 of 19 for 113 yards the rest of the way, with a lot of his completions coming late when the Eskimos gave up underneath routes to stop anything deep.

Besides Arceneaux, who finished with 7 catches for 164 yards, I thought Anthony Gaitor had an excellent game at boundary corner. No one in the reshuffled secondary played badly. The game was lost on the line of scrimmage.

[TheLionKing]

My worst fear was realized. Teams coming off a bye week are not sharp. I would be interested in knowing the record of teams coming off a bye week. Lions started off quickly scoring 2 touchdowns by Arceneaux. For some reason they went away from Manny til the 2nd half. Edmonton dominated both the offensive and defensive line. Poor tackling and stupid penalties didn't help the Lions' cause. Why did they bother inserting Sinkfield into the lineup when they just target him only once during the game. (on the first play of the game no less)

[B.C.FAN]

My worst fear was realized. Teams coming off a bye week are not sharp. I would be interested in knowing the record of teams coming off a bye week. Lions started off quickly scoring 2 touchdowns by Arceneaux. For some reason they went away from Manny til the 2nd half. Edmonton dominated both the offensive and defensive line. Poor tackling and stupid penalties didn't help the Lions' cause. Why did they bother inserting Sinkfield into the lineup when they just target him only once during the game. (on the first play of the game no less)

Before tonight, B.C. was 6-3 coming off a bye week since 2010 but they're 0-2 this year. They lost 44-41 in OT in Calgary in Week 6 after their first bye of the season.

The Eskimos were playing their third game in 19 days and they had only one practice this week but they outplayed the Lions, especially on the line of scrimmage. They also have a great record coming off a bye week: 7-1 since 2010.

[WestCoastJoe]

The good and the bad of a Wally team ...

Loads of talent.

A remarkable, young QB, who disguises some weaknesses on this team.

A predictable offence. Wally's influence? What he wants from his relatively inexperienced, hardly established OC?

It took years for MW to more or less take off the training wheels of his defence.

A frustrating O Line. Out of synch. Confused. Preoccupied in their brains. As Suitor noted, how the heck can you take a holding call on a screen pass, where you want the D to rush in? Give your head a shake. This is on Dorazio. Once again we see good talent playing confused football. But he has been Wally's guy back to the Calgary days. It was a relief for some fans when Tedford cut him loose last year. Toothache gone. Temporary. Toothache back.

Team out of synch. This fan cannot fault the young QB. Without him, our record and results would be much worse. IMO ...

Khari had no effective game plan to exploit Benny's D. Benny, of all people, out planned him, and out adjusted him. I have a hunch Khari is delivering the vanilla Wally prefers with the spread offence. Easy for a D to game plan against it. They look at the film, Burnham is dangerous. But the Schmo D was more ready than us when we went to him on screens. Hell, they were probably shouting a call to each other on D.

The Esks were mentally ready. We were not. That is on Wally.

Terrible run of the mill effort by the coaches. The players were there with their physical courage, as always. They were given poor game prep by the coaches.

Sinkfield? Not ready. Bad coaching and management decision? Yes. But that was a tough one. Good signing. But not game ready. Why not have him run the ball first touch? Lose the butterflies. Guys usually are emotionally down when the NFL dream fails. IMO we saw that with Solly.

Just one game? Sure. But there are signs that we are middle of the road in our planning and coaching, especially with the OC and the O Line. Middle of the road is generous, IMO. Loads of criticism of the OL coaching over the years on this site. Going easier these days.

Can be a fun team to watch. As when we beat a horrible team in Montreal. And we even gave them some chances. All sweetness and light from this long time fan? Nah ... LOL

Just IMO ...

[TheLionKing]

A frustrating O Line. Out of synch. Confused. Preoccupied in their brains. As Suitor noted, how the heck can you take a holding call on a screen pass, where you want the D to rush in? Give your head a shake. This is on Dorazio.
Just IMO ...

I know you're not a big fan of Dorazio but to blame him on the holding call on the screen pass is a little overboard in my opinion. That rest with the player and nobody else. I'm sure Dorazio didn't coach holding on a screen pass or Dean Valli catching a screen pass a few years back.

[WestCoastJoe]

A frustrating O Line. Out of synch. Confused. Preoccupied in their brains. As Suitor noted, how the heck can you take a holding call on a screen pass, where you want the D to rush in? Give your head a shake. This is on Dorazio.
Just IMO ...

I know you're not a big fan of Dorazio but to blame him on the holding call on the screen pass is a little overboard in my opinion. That rest with the player and nobody else. I'm sure Dorazio didn't coach holding on a screen pass or Dean Valli catching a screen pass a few years back.

Limiting myself to just one response, to avoid the back and forth ...

Such a situation can be taught in practice. Coaching can work. As noted countless times, it seems to this fan that our O Line becomes more and more confused as time goes by, and that they lose confidence as time goes by, and that they exhibit too much preoccupation as time goes by. Blame the player, or blame the coach? Both. Both the player and the coach. But for a coaching matter, that can be addressed in practice, I would put it on the coach. Too many holding penalties? Holding on a screen pass? I would put it on the coaching staff. Others may see it differently, especially in regard to one play, a dumb mistake by an individual player, in an OL group of five. I see it as a deeper problem than one individual play. Is this fan too tough on Dorazio? I don't think so. It goes with the territory of pro sports.

Dean Valli? All those years ago? I don't think I commented at the time on the Dean Valli screen pass of years ago. It was a nice catch. LOL But when you are unaware of the situation, possibly preoccupied, confused, or nervous, or whatever, you can hardly play effectively. Was this a coaching mattter suitable for practice? Yes. OL cannot catch a pass. Knock it down, if it comes to your bread basket. My last comment on this relic dredged up from years past.

Nobody works harder nor longer than Dan Dorazio. In the opinion of this fan he over coaches his charges on minute details of technique, robbing them of athletic instincts, preoccupying their minds. Some coaches are successful in the difficult task of coaching O Line. We see it on teams with effective O Lines.

Others can defend Dan Dorazio, as you have. He has his fans.

Have you and I ever agreed on anything? I don't think so. Oh yeah, I supported you when you went in to complain at the office about the performance of the team.

Just IMO. My last comment, on this issue in this thread, hopefully ...
.........

As the radio guys said post game, it was a tough loss. Quick lead. Eskimos flat. Then nada ...

[aklawitter]

Benny gets some Belly Bumps for making the proper adjustments after the 1st Q

[DanoT]

I don't have much to add to what is obvious and has already been stated so I will just say: very unimaginative predictable play calling, poor tackling and D line was mostly man handled.

[Blitz]

The good and the bad of a Wally team ...

Loads of talent.

A remarkable, young QB, who disguises some weaknesses on this team.

A predictable offence. Wally's influence? What he wants from his relatively inexperienced, hardly established OC?

It took years for MW to more or less take off the training wheels of his defence.

A frustrating O Line. Out of synch. Confused. Preoccupied in their brains. As Suitor noted, how the heck can you take a holding call on a screen pass, where you want the D to rush in? Give your head a shake. This is on Dorazio. Once again we see good talent playing confused football. But he has been Wally's guy back to the Calgary days. It was a relief for some fans when Tedford cut him loose last year. Toothache gone. Temporary. Toothache back.

Team out of synch. This fan cannot fault the young QB. Without him, our record and results would be much worse. IMO ...

Khari had no effective game plan to exploit Benny's D. Benny, of all people, out planned him, and out adjusted him. I have a hunch Khari is delivering the vanilla Wally prefers with the spread offence. Easy for a D to game plan against it. They look at the film, Burnham is dangerous. But the Schmo D was more ready than us when we went to him on screens. Hell, they were probably shouting a call to each other on D.

The Esks were mentally ready. We were not. That is on Wally.

Terrible run of the mill effort by the coaches. The players were there with their physical courage, as always. They were given poor game prep by the coaches.

Sinkfield? Not ready. Bad coaching and management decision? Yes. But that was a tough one. Good signing. But not game ready. Why not have him run the ball first touch? Lose the butterflies. Guys usually are emotionally down when the NFL dream fails. IMO we saw that with Solly.

Just one game? Sure. But there are signs that we are middle of the road in our planning and coaching, especially with the OC and the O Line. Middle of the road is generous, IMO. Loads of criticism of the OL coaching over the years on this site. Going easier these days.

Can be a fun team to watch. As when we beat a horrible team in Montreal. And we even gave them some chances. All sweetness and light from this long time fan? Nah ... LOL

Just IMO ...

Couldn't agree more with your analysis of the game and B.C. Fans too.

This game was lost:

1. On the line of scrimmage on both sides of the football
2. Poor run blocking and pass blocking
3. A simplistic, predictable offensive scheme
4. The inability to adjust to man defense/cover 2 zone

The last time we played Calgary, our offence was shut down by Calgary playing man with Cover 2 over the top. Benevedes switched to it after the first quarter of the game and we had no answer to it and that is due to scheme.

An offensive passing scheme has to have the ability to attack a defense both vertically and horizontally in all three layers of the field - short, intermediate, and deep.

There was a time when Chap used to run an overdose of crossing patterns against zone. Last night, as all season, we had an overdose of vertical patterns against man with zone over the top.

The Eskimos defenders were able to take chances playing tight man coverage because they knew they had help over the top. On almost every pass play our receiver had tight coverage and was being double teamed by one of the Edmonton defenders playing two deep safety. The patterns were too long (deep intermediate) on almost every pass play.

To make matters worse, Edmonton was able to get a great pass rush and have defenders in Jennings face, with only a 4 man pass rush. Edmonton ran a lot of stunts with their front four and our offensive line struggled pass blocking it.

What we should have been doing is running a lot of horizontal underneath crossing patterns against man. That would have negated the Cover 2 concept. We only ran one crossing pattern that I saw and that was an incomplete pass to Gore.

With the speed of Rainey and Sinkfield, quick crosses underneath would have been deadly and deeper crosses to Arseneneauz and Burnham difficult to defend. Instead, we stuck to our vertical passing attack and all we did was run into double coverage.

Of course, as I expected, we just used Sinkfield as a plug and play receiver, playing outside slot back. We never lined Sinkfield and Arseneaux together on the boundary side. We didn't move Sinkfield around at all take advantage of his speed or to clear out. Having Sinkfield play all game in the outside slot position just played into man defence/Cover 2.

We rushed Sinkfield into the lineup when we didn't need to. We could have waited one game. Boldewijn had four and five receptions in his last two games. But we wanted to activate Sinkfield to take advantage of his speed and then we didn't utilize it for any advantage.

The reality is that Khari Jones offence would be in hell if it were not for Jennings and the talent of Arseneaux, Burnham, etc. Jennings usually has to make purrfect throws. He may have the best arm of any quarterback to ever play a Leo uniform. As I wrote in the pre-game thread, Dickenson threw the short and intermediate pass very accurately, Printers threw very well on the run, Roy Dewalt was a great deep ball passer, but Jennings can make all throws accurately. But we are asking way too much of him.

The only time we rolled Jennings out, we were successful but we keep him in the pocket, we force him to make a lot of tough deep intermediate throws against good coverage most of the time, and we don't usually give him a lot of time to throw the football. Our passing game is predictable and simplistic. It doesn't move our receivers around into different positions to take advantage of matchups at all. Its predictably Gore and Arseneax on the boundary side, with Burnham, the outside slot and Iannuzzi on the wide side, unless we go four receivers wide side.

Defenses are going to play more man/Cover 2 against us. Calgary game planned it that way. Benevedes shifted into it, after our first quarter success. We're going to see more of it because its the recipe to shut down our vertical passing game.

We didn't run the football very often and when we did we ran it very ineffectively. Last game, we used motion prior to the zone read running play. This time we ran zone read, straight up, with zone blocking. We only ran one running play with Johnson - the zone read inside run and he couldn't find a whole anywere, until one run late in the game.

The great running attack we saw was likely an anomaly. The reality is that when you use one running play, defenses are going to be able to contain it.

The reality is that we've seen this scenario many times before. Chap got blamed for it when he was here. Jones got blamed for it in 2014, although Glenn got most of the heat. Cortez wore a lot of it last season. But, it truly is the offensive scheme. Its a simplistic, spread offensive scheme with one running play, pocket passing, and predictable pass patterns that teams can scout.

Its also typical of a Dorazio coached offensive line. We usually start off the season running the football well but by mid-season the running game usually gets shut down and the pass protection struggles with stunts.

Without an Andrew Harris to dump the football to, there is no outlet to deal with quarterback pressure nor is a short pattern available for the quarterback to go to.

No, Dorazio can't be blamed for a hold on a screen call or a Valli catching a football on a screen but he is the offensive line coach who sets up the blocking for the pass and run, he is the coach who designs the running game, and he is the coach who only has one running play, with predictable zone read blocking. He is the one who is responsible for the Levi Adcock fiasco, switching Olifioye to left tackle, benching Steward and Johnson, and he is responsible for the procedure calls, the holding calls, the difficulties dealing with stunts, because those are historic. He's also choosing to play Fabian, who is having his struggles.

Khari Jones lucked in with a dynamic young quarterback this season. This offence goes because of Jennings, not Khari Jones, who restricts our offensive success more than he helps it. But this is Wally's play book, no matter which offensive coordinator runs it. Every defense has seen it for years and years.

A defensive coordinator has an easy time to prepare for our offence, in terms of knowing what we will do. In fact one defensive coordinator a couple of years ago said so. They tell their defensive line to not overplay the inside zone read run on the backside. Their tackles stay low and penetrate to plug it. Their pass defense does not have to account for anti-blitz and quick quarterback pressure. They can look at tape and know the patterns that we will run because they know on each play where each of our receivers will line up and what patterns we like to run with each of them. We do the same thing each game. It never changes.

Defensively, Mark Washington has stepped up this season. He made a great decision to move Gaitor to corner and Fenner to halfback on the boundary side. It was a move I hoped for. Stewart is not a good enough corner for the boundary side. He struggled on the wide side last night. Edmonton attacked our wide side with Phillips and Stewart when it was expected they would go after the rookies. Stewart has not been the solution we hoped he would be.

Washington has done a very good job with our pass defense this season, considering the injuries and the changes we've had to make to our secondary.

But last night's game exposed our weakness, in terms of defensive personnel. Our linebackers are forced to make too many tackles against the run. We can't get pressure on the quarterback with Brooks inside, who has not been a force since coming back from injury. Our rotational defensive end, whether its Allen or Hudson can't get pressure. Roh got a sack last night but he is average at best. Our defensive line relies on two players to get pressure on the quarterback - Bazzie and Westerman. If they are being doubled, we have to blitz. Reilly had way too much time to throw last night.

A key play, in the game, with a second-and-20 following a holding penalty against guard Matt O’Donnell, Steward allowed Bowman to get behind him came for a 59-yard reception that Bell followed with a three-yard touchdown run to tie it 14-14. The throw to Bowman gave Edmonton new life and motivation.


There was no magic last drive by Jennings. Instead it was an interception. I don't hold him responsible. We ask way too much of him and don't do the things that would increase his success. Instead we increase his difficulty.

Our Leos are now tied with Winnipeg. We're in a fight to now host a playoff game. Winnipeg's defence has been a turnover machine. We have to hope that Calgary beats them.

It was only one game but the loss to Edmonton, combined with the loss to Calgary, where they also shut out our offence, shows trouble could be on the horizon, unless we make some adaptions.

In terms of adaptions, for example, Calgary uses Messam on sweeps, even though he isn't that fleet of foot. They stretch the defense with their running game to open up the inside run. They run the outside stretch play. They pull their guard or center at times. They block for the run in different ways. We need to add a quick pitch, a fly sweep, a stretch play, or a reverse to attack the edge with our running game, instead of just inside zone read/zone blocking. We need some running game variety.

We need to hit Rainey in the flat with our passing attack. He was open many times. Down at the goal line, in the fourth quarter, from the 5 yard line, we threw a long incompletion and Jennings was sacked on second down. No need for such long developing plays. A quick swing to Rainey, with the tackle racing out for a kick out block and Rainey would have been tough to stop. Heck, he would have been tough to stop without the block. Another play that would have worked down there against man defense would have been a quick double cross, with Sinkfield inside, combined with Arseneaux or Burnham, but instead we go with long developing passing plays from the 5 yard line. Dum!!!

I guess I have to give Benny some Benny Bumps for adjusting his pass defense after the first quarter, as much as it pains me.

But mostly, it wasn't Benevedes change of defense that was the recipe for Edmonton's success. What choice did Benevedes have, after being burned deep twice, early in the game. He had to go with two safeties or Jennings would have burned him all night. It was still a basic four man defensive front most of the game for Edmonton. We even made Odell Willis look good. Edmonton had the 8th best defense in the CFL coming into this game and we made them look like a Championship defense for the last three quarters.

As Manny said after the game, "It wasn't what Edmonton did as much as what the B.C. Lions didn't do...and there were too many negative plays in the second half of the game".

Rather than Benny Bumps, I award 5 head smashes for our inability to adjust, to keep on doing what isn't working, and to have no concept of how to attack man defense, with zone deep help.

[Blitz]

There is always disappointment after a Leo loss. But this game was so disappointing, based on our offensive performance for three quarters, against an Edmonton defense that has been exploited all season.

But its also important to point out players who played well and those who didn't as well.

Anthony Gaitor

Anthony Gaitor looked excellent at boundary corner. He not only showed good coverage skills, great anticipation on his interception, but he also came up and tackled well.

Chandler Fenner

Chandler Fenner was also aggressive at boundary halfback. He came up to play the run well and could not be faulted on the Bowman touchdown reception that Reilley threw like a rope. Fenner had no safety help on the play and should have, against a deep post pattern. Fenner looks like a good one and his size is what we need at boundary halfback. Considering it was his first start, he played well.

Jonathan Jennings

In the fourth quarter, following Almondo Sewell’s eighth sack of the season pushed our Leos back towards midfield, Jennings lined up with second and 18 yards to go and and rifled a pass to Gore. It was a clutch throw and completion that enabled us to go ahead 23-21, with less than half a quarter to go in the game.

Jennings stats don't show him having a very good game but he made some incredible throws, both deep and deep intermediate. With receivers double covered he threw the football with incredible accuracy and had to. We also had too many receiver drops and while Jennings was only sacked twice, most of his throws were made with defenders in his face. Jennings also avoided a sure interception when Edmonton jumped a Burnham hitch screen but Jennings saw it at the last split second and pulled the football down.

Adam Bighill

Our linebackers are forced to make too many tackles but Bighill was a force all game, making tackles all over the place and also getting a sack after being knocked down. It was a determined effort. With few defensive tackles from Brooks, Roh, Bazzie, or Allen against the run, our linebackers had to make a lot of tackles and Bighill led the way.

Loucheiz Purifoy

We don't blitz Purifoy has often as we did but he continues to cover well, plays the run with aggression, and has 25 tackles and 3 sacks on the season on the season, 4 forced fumbles, and a fumble return for a touchdown. He had another solid effort against Edmonton.

Manny Arseneaux

The Manny Show was in full force in the first half. He had seven passes for 164 yards in the first half but was blanketed once Edmonton switched its defence to force double coverage against him on any intermediate and deep passes.

Chris Rainey

On offence Chris Rainey had two carries for 21 yards. His speed on the draw play was impressive. We should have thrown to him more on offence, against man coverage.

However, better play is needed from the following Leo players

Kirby Fabian

Kirby Fabian struggled all game. Sewell is a very difficult defensive end to stop but Fabian has struggled for a while now. I would have replaced him with Vaillencourt a few games back. However, if Steward is hurt, Vaillencourt will need to play left guard. Fabian takes too many penalties and allows too much penetration. He does not hold his blocks long enough.

Brandon Stewart

Stewart gets beat deep too often, he is not a tight cover guy, his anticipation skills are lacking, he is an inconsistent tackler, and he is not a good force corner. Stewart leads our secondary in tackles because teams throw against him successfully way too often.

Mike Edem

Mike Edem has shored up our safety position and he is an improvement, but he often lacks anticipation skills on deep balls, leaving our halfbacks to cover without adequate safety help. Edem has no interceptions on the season.

Craig 'Death' Row

Craig Roh, rather than creating mayhem, usually puts me to sleep. He is weak against the run and his four sacks have mostly arrived due to pressure from his defensive line mates. He has 12 tackles on the entire season so far. That doesn't cut it.

Mic'heal Brooks

Michael Brooks has 13 tackles on the season and 0 sacks. Last season and early this season he looked like a force to be reckoned with. Not so much for a while now. Westerman is seriously outplaying him.

Darius Allen

Wally wanted a better pass rush to compliment Bazzie. However, playing his 8th game of the season, Allen was once again a non-factor. We're better off using Menard as the rotational defensive end and playing Bryant Turner Jr., who can also shift outside if needed. We really need to be looking for a NFL cut at defensive end if we want a rotational player. Allen nor Hudson have been effective, although Hudson has looked better than Allen.

Shaq Murray Lawrence

Shaq didn't play last night, except for kickoffs and Rainey took them all. However, Shaq Murray Lawrence is not a threat on kick-off returns and using Sinkfied in that spot makes sense for the occasional change up.

Well, time to get ready to watch Calgary/Edmonton.

Can't believe I will be pulling for the Stamps!

[Blitz]

Many Lionbackers are very knowledgeable football fans who have either played the game, coached the game at some level, or have watched the game for so long, from an analytical view, that they understand the concepts very well.

But for any Lionbacker who is newer to the game, this is what Edmonton did against us, for the most part, after the 1st quarter.

They played man to man against our five receiver set. They played two deep zone behind those man defenders. That meant they had five defenders covering 5 receivers and two deep defenders playing deep zone defense, to provide deep help or deep intermediate help.

On most plays they had four pass rushers. That left them one linebacker to cover the tailback and also come up on any quarterback run.

So, all of our five receivers were being covered tight, with no fear of a deep or deep intermediate pattern, because the safety on either side of the field would be there to help on those longer type routes.

There were essentially two different concepts to beating that type of coverage.

Hi-Lo Crossers

By running cross-over routes, it forces man defenders to chase receivers and its very difficult to man cover receivers on horizontal routes on the wide Canadian field. Its usually a lose proposition. With the two safeties playing deep, they are not available for help.

One receiver runs deep and two receivers run what is referred to as high cross-over routes. These are intermediate routes. Two recievers also run short (low) quick cross-over routes. There is no linebacker help on these short routes because the linebacker has to worry about the tailback and the quarterback. Play action can also freeze the linebacker.

High low Crossers can be run with different receivers on different pass plays. For example, you can cross over your slotbacks or your wide receivers on different plays. You can cross-over your slotback and wide receiver on opposite sides on a different play. You can layer your slot backs high on one cross- over and low on the next pass play. In other words, you continually change up. You also run one receiver deep and change that deep receiver on different plays.

Cross-Overs also tend to cause confusion and also sometimes knocks defenders off. It can eat up man coverage.

Rub Routes

Cross-Overs use receivers on opposite sides of the field to cross-over. Rub routes are really short crosses on the same side of the field. Once again they can cause confusion and cause defenders to run around a receiver to get to their assignment. They are very effective against man defense.

Bunched Receivers and Stacked Receivers

Bunch formations of three players create all kinds of assignment problems for man defense. With three receivers coming off the line with close stem routes, they are difficult to cover. Stack formations on the boundary two receiver side can also create problems for man defence, because the first receiver can effectively screen off the defender of the second receiver, forcing the defender to run around him.

Tailback Pass Plays

Man defense, with Cover 2 behind, is a defense that Is weak against the tailback pass. With the pass receivers spread out, the linebacker has to cover the tailback in the passing attack and that is usually a mismatch. Not only does the linebacker have to play run but he also has to cover the quarterback run.

Throwing to the tailback in the flat gives him a one on one against the linebacker, who has to cover a lot of ground. Give me Rainey on a swing route against a linebacker and I will take that all game.

To free the tailback, on the boundary side, you can run one receiver deep and the other on a low cross to rub the linebacker or screen him off or freeze him. On the wideside, you can send one receiver deep on the outside, send one receiiver on a post, and the third on a low cross. That completely opens up the wide side of the field, with tons of space for the tailback to run a swing pattern or flare pattern.

Throwing short screens, with the receivers clearing out the areas first, can put three offensive lineman and a tailback against one linebacker.

Johnson had two catches for 21 yards, on the two times we used him on passes as a tailback. We didn't use Rainey at all for swing/flare patterns against the linebacker. What a waste.

Finally, you can include the tailback as a cross-over receiver. The tailback looks like he will help block the defensive end and runs a short cross against a cleared out area. Its almost impossible to defend with linebacker man coverage and a back like Rainey, when in the game, would be impossible to defend and he would have tons of room to run with the football after the catch..

Quarterback Draw

By sending Johnson or Rainey quickly to the flat, he has to be covered by the linebacker. That would leave the middle of the field open for a quarterback draw. Vice-versa, a couple of quarterback draws would help freeze the linebacker, to help Rainey or Johnson more open in the flat.

WRAP

Our vertical deep and deeper patterns just played into Edmonton's man defense, with Cover 2 over the top. We had Sinkfield and Rainey, two speedsters to run crosses against man coverage. Gore, Burnham, Iannuzzi, and Arseneaux can all run crosses against man coverage, with their speed.

The above concepts are simple Football 101 against man coverage. Every offence should have a number of pass plays designed for man coverage. Every offence should have a number of pass plays designed for zone coverage

You don't throw hitch screens against man/Cover 2 because the defenders can take chances, with zone cover behind. We were lucky we didn't have an interception/touchdown on one hitch screen to Burnham and the second one went for a loss of 7 yards on first down. Not smart at all to call those plays for that defense plus Edmonton had the play well scouted by alignment and tipped it off.

I can accept a loss but losing stupidly drives me crazy.

For too long, until 2011, Chap would run high/low crosses against zone defense and almost get our receivers killed. Now we've had two offensive coordinators who run vertical routes against man defense. It sometimes feels crazy. These are pro coaches.

To add to the mess in the second half, Edmonton ran a four man pass rush with a lot of twists/stunts or loops. Basically, all this means is that the defensive end and tackle cross, with one leading first, either inside or outside. Or they twisted their defensive tackles. The only difference between a twist and a loop is the second defensive lineman takes a longer route (loop) rather than a cross.

With five offensive lineman against four defensive lineman and rare blitzes, it was a simple concept to defend. All we needed to do was area pass block. If they rushed straight up, we double Sewell with our centre/guard. No need to keep the back in because they are not blitzing and we shouldnt' be throwing deep against man/Cover 2. No need to put Lumbala in either.

Why we use Lumbala for flat passes is beyond me. He is not quick to run the route, he is not an open field runner, and his back is to the defense. Lumbala, in the passing game, should be used on misdirection screens (aka Sean Millington), or short release passes closer to the quarterback, so he can be quickly be running vertically. We were fortunate we won the challenge on the flat play to Lumbala that it was not ruled a fumble because it was a close call.

Why Khari Jones didn't do so.... is beyond me!!!!

[TheLionKing]

No, Dorazio can't be blamed for a hold on a screen call or a Valli catching a football on a screen

Precisely my point in my previous post. No attempt to defend Dorazio in any way.