Lions 26 @ Riders 13 -- Post Game Stats and Comments

[TheLionKing]

Thank goodness Mike Gillis is not the GM/President of the Lions.

[Hambone]

At that distance, if McCallum missed, it would have gone through the end zone, so no danger of a long return...the Lions could have easily punted into the end zone for 1 point as well...or McCallum could have coffin cornered it and made them drive the length of the field to score...you play football to win aggressively, not afraid...and MB reacted in a fear mode, and that could have cost us...it was a stupid call by a guy in panic mode.

It definitely doesn't go through the end zone. It would've been a 40 yarder that had to carry 60 in the air to reach the back line. A return was definitely possible but I honestly don't think that was a factor in the decision.

Did Bene react in a fear mode or did he react in an aggressive mode? You have Harris playing like a man possessed all night long. You have a defence that had neutered the Rider offence and held them to what? 2 first downs in the first 28 minutes of the second half. I cannot fathom a fear of attempting a 40 yard FG, a distance McCallum may miss on once every 50 or so kicks. I think for a change they decided for the most aggressive approach, not the conservative one, and went after the jugular by going for the first down. If going for the first down is deemed to be out of fear of having a missed kick returned then can it not also be said that going for the FG is also out of fear of not getting the 1st down and the fear of having the defence that has dominated all half suddenly wilt and surrender a 13 point lead in less than 2 minutes?

Personally I probably would've taken the easy way out and gone for the conservative play and gone for the safer, high percentage FG. At the same time I like the aggressiveness of going for it as sending a message to the OL and Harris that they believe in them to get it done and if not they believe in the defence to take the game home.

[WestCoastJoe]

A field goal pretty much guarantees a win. A lead of 16.

A run for 3 yards on a third down gamble? That is low odds, it seems to me. Even a fake dive, rollout, short pass is higher percentage. Or a look in over the middle, albeit Glenn has to miss hands up D Linemen. IMO it was not a play to win call. It was a protect the lead call. IMO ...

Put it this way. I expect almost all Head Coaches would have gone for the field goal.

Was a TD return on Benny's mind? I don't see how it could not have been. Other factors involved? Sure.

Still a strange decision, it seems to me. Even if just because of the low percentage odds it offered. We are still not good at short yardage. And now we go for 3 yards up the middle?

A conservative call? Yes. No TD return. No intercepted pass in the open field. No tipped pass at the LOS. And a chance, slim though it was, for a first down. Protecting a lead. But ... If it fails, it is only a 13 point lead, with two and half minutes on the clock. In the CFL. It was a very high percentage field goal opportunity that we passed up. We did not get 7 points (the ultimate aggressive play with a pass into the end zone). We did not get 3 points (Gotta trust your STs.) We did not get one point. We did not get great field position. We did not improve field position. We gave the ball up on downs. That is a very poor return on the down, without benefit, except that we did avoid disaster.

An aggressive run call would be third and three from the 40 yard line, trailing by three, with less than a minute on the clock.

We don't know what was in Benny's mind. We could see Dorazio talking to him. Somewhat unusual. Fear? Maybe. Aggressive? Not in my view. If it works, of course, it is not a terrible call. Were the Riders ready? Absolutely. Were they tricked? No.

If we really wanted the first down, why not a high percentage pass? The run call? Could be seen as protecting the ball and the lead. A short pass? Obviously going for the first down. A field goal? Possibly the more likely call by most coaches. Looking to build the lead. Getting past the fear of a TD return.

So it seems to me ... Just for discussion.

[Blitz]

At that distance, if McCallum missed, it would have gone through the end zone, so no danger of a long return...the Lions could have easily punted into the end zone for 1 point as well...or McCallum could have coffin cornered it and made them drive the length of the field to score...you play football to win aggressively, not afraid...and MB reacted in a fear mode, and that could have cost us...it was a stupid call by a guy in panic mode.

It definitely doesn't go through the end zone. It would've been a 40 yarder that had to carry 60 in the air to reach the back line. A return was definitely possible but I honestly don't think that was a factor in the decision.

Did Bene react in a fear mode or did he react in an aggressive mode? You have Harris playing like a man possessed all night long. You have a defence that had neutered the Rider offence and held them to what? 2 first downs in the first 28 minutes of the second half. I cannot fathom a fear of attempting a 40 yard FG, a distance McCallum may miss on once every 50 or so kicks. I think for a change they decided for the most aggressive approach, not the conservative one, and went after the jugular by going for the first down. If going for the first down is deemed to be out of fear of having a missed kick returned then can it not also be said that going for the FG is also out of fear of not getting the 1st down and the fear of having the defence that has dominated all half suddenly wilt and surrender a 13 point lead in less than 2 minutes?

Personally I probably would've taken the easy way out and gone for the conservative play and gone for the safer, high percentage FG. At the same time I like the aggressiveness of going for it as sending a message to the OL and Harris that they believe in them to get it done and if not they believe in the defence to take the game home.

The Lions chose not to gamble on third and one twice, from my recollection in the second half, prior to gambling on third and 3. They chose a very conservative approach prior to taking this aggressive approach. Not sure what to make of it.

[DanoT]

The team is getting better on the field but the HC is getting worse on the sidelines. Although in his favour there at least weren't any embarrassing inept chest bumps, or at least none were shown on TV.

In the post game radio show Benevides said that he went for the 3rd and 3 gamble (I'm paraphrasing) in order to make a statement and stuff it at the Riders, blah, blah, blah. A stupid decision made by what appears to be an overly emotional HC.

Trying a FG against the wind in a tight game (and McCallum had already missed one FG in the game) and risk a big return on a missed FG might cause a HC to play it a bit more conservative and so: PUNT A SINGLE TO MAKE IT A 14 POINT LEAD is a no brainer.

Punting for a single would have given the Riders the ball on the 25 yard line and the Lions a 14 point lead. Instead the Lions ill conceived failed gamble gave the Riders the ball on the 30+ yard line and the Lions only a 13 point lead.

I have a growing confidence in both the OC and DC and a diminishing confidence in the HC.

Coach Benny just reiterated on radio 1040 (6pm Monday night Mike Benevides Show) what I have underlined above. He stated that he was confident that if they didn't make the first down that the D was playing well enough to prevent the Riders from scoring 2 TDs in the time remaining which I think was 2.5 min.

I still maintain that it was an emotional decision by Coach Benny because a more calm reasoned approach would have called for a punt through the end zone and a way, way more comfortable 14 point lead which would have insured a tie not a loss if the worst happened and the Riders got a Hail Mary TD followed by a short kick recovery. It was a time in the game to be conservative not aggressive, in my view.

[Rammer]

The team is getting better on the field but the HC is getting worse on the sidelines. Although in his favour there at least weren't any embarrassing inept chest bumps, or at least none were shown on TV.

In the post game radio show Benevides said that he went for the 3rd and 3 gamble (I'm paraphrasing) in order to make a statement and stuff it at the Riders, blah, blah, blah. A stupid decision made by what appears to be an overly emotional HC.

Trying a FG against the wind in a tight game (and McCallum had already missed one FG in the game) and risk a big return on a missed FG might cause a HC to play it a bit more conservative and so: PUNT A SINGLE TO MAKE IT A 14 POINT LEAD is a no brainer.

Punting for a single would have given the Riders the ball on the 25 yard line and the Lions a 14 point lead. Instead the Lions ill conceived failed gamble gave the Riders the ball on the 30+ yard line and the Lions only a 13 point lead.

I have a growing confidence in both the OC and DC and a diminishing confidence in the HC.

Coach Benny just reiterated on radio 1040 (6pm Monday night Mike Benevides Show) what I have underlined above. He stated that he was confident that if they didn't make the first down that the D was playing well enough to prevent the Riders from scoring 2 TDs in the time remaining which I think was 2.5 min.

I still maintain that it was an emotional decision by Coach Benny because a more calm reasoned approach would have called for a punt through the end zone and a way, way more comfortable 14 point lead which would have insured a tie not a loss if the worst happened and the Riders got a Hail Mary TD followed by a short kick recovery. It was a time in the game to be conservative not aggressive, in my view.

The concept of not going for the jugular with a FG is an underlying problem with the Lions, a reason why they didn't finish off a couple more GC's in the mid 2000 decade. When you are the better team you don't allow them an ounce of inspiration, which they could have easily rode to make that game more challenging than it needed to be. You cannot keep on giving life to your opposition and not get burned.

[WestCoastJoe]

Coach Benny just reiterated on radio 1040 (6pm Monday night Mike Benevides Show) what I have underlined above. He stated that he was confident that if they didn't make the first down that the D was playing well enough to prevent the Riders from scoring 2 TDs in the time remaining which I think was 2.5 min.

I still maintain that it was an emotional decision by Coach Benny because a more calm reasoned approach would have called for a punt through the end zone and a way, way more comfortable 14 point lead which would have insured a tie not a loss if the worst happened and the Riders got a Hail Mary TD followed by a short kick recovery. It was a time in the game to be conservative not aggressive, in my view.

I agree that it was a time to be conservative. Not a time for high risk. Not a time for a gamble. But not that conservative. To me, that was the most conservative call possible. Aside from the QB going turtle.

The ultimate aggressive play, if one is willing to give up the ball at the LOS on a failed run, would be to go deep into the end zone. Interception? Who cares? Just make the tackle. Instead we gave up the ball at the LOS for nothing. Nothing ventured. Nothing gained. And no disaster, of course. I expect some coaches, such as Don Matthews, or even Chris Jones, might think of it privately as a disaster of playing it too safe.

A very safe play, with a good chance for one point, was a coffin corner kick, or a punt that just squeaks out the side of the endzone. Go for field position. Or get one point.

You trust your STs? You trust your kicker? Go for the field goal.

IMO the very safest play was what we did. Run the ball up the middle. Justify as you will, but it seems to me that was the safest play. Fumble in the scrum? Likely covered. Looks just like running out the clock in a tight game. Odds of making a first down? Low. Very low. The Riders had overloads and penetration across the LOS.

Not sure how Benny presented it to the media ... But I don't think he could convince a panel that trusting his ground game, and expecting to get a first down was the deciding factor. Usually when teams do not go for a field goal of 40 yards or so, it is because of fear of the long TD return. As it happens, Wally had that fear.

For Benny to present the rationale as stuffing it to the Riders, or making a statement is silly and nonsense and baloney. IMO. Not good reasons to make a very crucial decision.

Message to the Riders? How do the Riders receive the claimed message? How do the Riders view the 3rd down call? Hell, they are not even going for the field goal. LOL They are playing it safe. They just gave us a life. Even though we have played poorly, we now still have a chance. Overload the LOS. Key on Harris. Penetrate and tackle!!! Which they did. ... It is one thing to make that call. Not a good thing IMO. It is another thing to baffle gab it to the press. Blather and baloney. We were making a statement, and we were taking it to the Riders. Nonsense. We were playing it safe. Here is the ball. You're welcome. You even get field position.

As Blitz has pointed out, from his recollection, earlier we chose to not go for it on 3rd and 1. Twice. (That makes a statement). And now, at the key time of the game, we decide to go for it on 3rd and 3? Bizarre. The man making the decision is not on soliid ground. Not for the decision itself, nor in how it was portrayed to the press. (From the Riders point of view, in that situation, with few chances for victory, what is the least worrisome play Benevides can call? I would suggest it is a run up the middle. The Lions get no points, when they had a high percentage field goal shot. We get the ball. At the LOS. A turnover on downs. We get field position. We have two and a half minutes left on the clock. In a game in which we have played poorly. Thank you.)

The best outfits have this all decided beforehand. On a decision chart. Situation? Do this. Situation? Do that. Not try to figure it out in the heat of the moment. It sounds like he winged it.

Not sure of the deciding factor for Benny, but how he presents it to the media will get scrutiny. And it just seemed strange, and unusual, and unlikely to get a first down. Very high percentage field goal opportunity. Not taken. Perhaps a 90% chance of success for 3 points, and a strong 16 point lead. A comeback tie requires two TDs. And two two point conversions. Unlikely even in the CFL.

Dare I say it? Sure. Did we go turtle? Coaches that go hyper conservative sometimes go extreme on the other side, and make some extremely high risk, low odds of success, baffling decisions. Haven't we seen some of that here over the years?

[MexicoLionFan]

At that distance, if McCallum missed, it would have gone through the end zone, so no danger of a long return...the Lions could have easily punted into the end zone for 1 point as well...or McCallum could have coffin cornered it and made them drive the length of the field to score...you play football to win aggressively, not afraid...and MB reacted in a fear mode, and that could have cost us...it was a stupid call by a guy in panic mode.

It definitely doesn't go through the end zone. It would've been a 40 yarder that had to carry 60 in the air to reach the back line. A return was definitely possible but I honestly don't think that was a factor in the decision.

Did Bene react in a fear mode or did he react in an aggressive mode? You have Harris playing like a man possessed all night long. You have a defence that had neutered the Rider offence and held them to what? 2 first downs in the first 28 minutes of the second half. I cannot fathom a fear of attempting a 40 yard FG, a distance McCallum may miss on once every 50 or so kicks. I think for a change they decided for the most aggressive approach, not the conservative one, and went after the jugular by going for the first down. If going for the first down is deemed to be out of fear of having a missed kick returned then can it not also be said that going for the FG is also out of fear of not getting the 1st down and the fear of having the defence that has dominated all half suddenly wilt and surrender a 13 point lead in less than 2 minutes?

Personally I probably would've taken the easy way out and gone for the conservative play and gone for the safer, high percentage FG. At the same time I like the aggressiveness of going for it as sending a message to the OL and Harris that they believe in them to get it done and if not they believe in the defence to take the game home.

Splitting hairs...then put in Ricky Schmitt to kick...he kicks FGs too...and if you don't want to risk a FG, punt the ball for a single...and if you still want to run a play, like Joe said, take a 3 step drop and throw a deep ball to the sidelines for our wide side WR who had single coverage all game...don't play to lose...

[DanoT]

Yup, of all the options available on the 3rd and 3 play: FG, punt, play action pass, end zone shot, 4 yard pass, or having Harris run to his right, Benny chose the worst option imo.

Coach Benny was right about one thing: the D did not allow any more Rider points even with the turn over on downs due to the failed 3rd down attempt. However it did take an interception by Josh Jones to end the opportunity of a Rider come back.

[WestCoastJoe]

Any coach would have that sense, at the back of the brain, if we miss the field goal, it can go the other way. But, it seems to me, the bold call was to go for the field goal. That makes a statement. We have confidence in McCallum. We have confidence beyond that, in our coverage team. We are playing to win. The call certainly has some risk.

Less bold call: Punt it through the end zone. Low risk.

Compromise call: Coffin corner punt. Either a single point. Or field position. Low risk.

Bonzai call: Long pass. Low risk. Chance for 7 points and game over. Give up the ball at the LOS? Well, that is exactly what we did anyway, going for nothing.

Go for the 1st down: Roll out short pass. Turnover on downs? Apparently not a concern, as that is exactly what we did.

Play it safe call: Run up the middle. Protect the lead. Give up the ball. Slight, slight chance Harris makes an incredible run, beating about 5 guys. The odds are strongly against even Harris doing that, with the entire defence keying on him. The lowest risk, aside from the QB kneeling down.

What if it was 3rd and 7? Would Benny have gone for the field goal? Or would he have punted it?

And it worked out for Benny. But it seems he has presented it to the media in a certain light, which brings some scrutiny. If the Riders had scored a quick 14 points, Benny would have a hard time justifying the decision. Going for no points. Giving up the ball and field position. Here is the ball. Earn the win on your own. We are not going to try to drive a stake through your heart with a field goal.

And it was puzzling for observers. Why did he call that? And now we see that it was a complicated situation. And that is why teams have these on a chart, with ready made decisions. Do this. Do that. No pondering about it in the heat of the moment.

"Down by 3, 40 seconds on the clock, at the 15 yard line, third and one." Decision? It is better if you already know what you will call.

[Shi Zi Mi]

Sheesh....poor Benevides.....he has no chance of making the right decision in the eyes of some posters on this board.

[WestCoastJoe]

Sheesh....poor Benevides.....he has no chance of making the right decision in the eyes of some posters on this board.

LOL

I guess we can close our eyes. That is one of the tough things about pro sports. It is all there on view for the world to see. The performance and the decisions. And some of these decisions the HC has to make ... Not easy in the heat of the moment.

We are in the third year of Benny's reign. No screaming for his dismissal. But some fans unhappy with the performance and the backsliding.

Year 1: 13 and 5. 1st place in regular season. Loss in the playoffs.

Year 2: 10 and 8. 5th place in regular season. Loss in the playoffs.

Year 3: 1 and 2. Tied for 4th place in the West. One would have to say that a berth in the playoffs is at risk.

The griping seems rather tame to me. Benny is a good man. Fair. Sympathetic. A players' coach. Good citizen. But the griping of some fans is all about the wins and losses, the performance and the decisions. Heartless guys.

Football Head Coach? A tough gig. I recall the look of extreme intensity on the face of Forrest Gregg as Head Coach of the Argonauts. Yikes. And that intensity might be there with no fans watching a game being played. Pro football Head Coach? Yikes. You had better be prepared for the intense scrutiny.

[Shi Zi Mi]

For the record.....I'm not impressed with his yelling at refs, waving his arms, running down the sidelines, etc.......and I don't think his players are impressed either. A couple things I noticed last game.....1) Cord Parks got in HIS face when Benevides confronted him about the blocking penalty....a glaring show of disrespect. 2) After taking the no yards penalty late in the game Jason Arakgi was confronted by Benevides while coming back to the bench.......and he walked right by Benevides like he wasn't there....not good. Most likely, the pressure of the 0-2 start was taking it's toll on MB.....and after all the ST penalties early in the game he probably chewed them out at half time....sadly, with no effect, as the penalties continued and that enraged MB. He is perilously close to losing his dressing room.....hopefully, Buono steps in NOW to calm him down and all parties meet to clear the air......otherwise, this could get REAL ugly soon.

[Rammer]

For the record.....I'm not impressed with his yelling at refs, waving his arms, running down the sidelines, etc.......and I don't think his players are impressed either. A couple things I noticed last game.....1) Cord Parks got in HIS face when Benevides confronted him about the blocking penalty....a glaring show of disrespect. 2) After taking the no yards penalty late in the game Jason Arakgi was confronted by Benevides while coming back to the bench.......and he walked right by Benevides like he wasn't there....not good. Most likely, the pressure of the 0-2 start was taking it's toll on MB.....and after all the ST penalties early in the game he probably chewed them out at half time....sadly, with no effect, as the penalties continued and that enraged MB. He is perilously close to losing his dressing room.....hopefully, Buono steps in NOW to calm him down and all parties meet to clear the air......otherwise, this could get REAL ugly soon.

Interesting take on the Parks and Arakgi discussions, but I do think that Parks had a legit beef with the call. Beny has to get their attention quickly and I would place Arakgi's walk by more a show of knowing what he did, and he knows better. With that said, Arakgi seems to be a favourite of the refs for taking a penalty, not a good place when a team is struggling.

[David]

Sorry, I don't think anyone is too keen on Benny's constant gesticulating, strutting, showboating, and theatrics, but it's a massive assumption from our living room chair to suggest he's losing the room, or that Parks got in his grill (could have just been arguing his side about the absurd call?) or that Aragki sauntered right past him. Especially when none of us were on that sideline or in the locker room.

My


DH