Lions 26 - Bombers 9 -- Post Game Stats and Comments

The Place for BC Lion Discussion. A forum for Lions fans to talk and chat about our team.
Discussion, News, Information and Speculation regarding the BC Lions and the CFL.
Prowl, Growl and Roar!

Moderator: Team Captains

User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

Hawkballer 14 wrote:A win is a win is a win. Congrats Lions.

A short work week, now it's on to the next big game: this Friday against Toronto.
Yah, you are right, these points seem to mean more than the win over the Redblacks but a win is a win.

OTOH, there were some positive differences I saw last night. I really liked how the first half ended last night. Lots of times the ends of halves have been troublesome, IMO. Both ends of halves went well but the first half in particular.

Is also seems the short yardage may be past some of its struggles :cr: as Beck seems to do a good job of this. Hope that continues as this aspect has been :dizzy: for quite a few seasons (probably another Oline problem, I'm betting....).
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

We beat the Bombers because our offence contributed to our defense. Our offence played well overall, for these simple reasons -

1. We used many more tight end sets than usual with an extra lineman and Lumbala lined up as the tight ends.

2. We rushed the football more than 20 times

3. We rushed for 165 yards - a huge difference than our previous three games.

The run helped with pass protection and opened up the passing attack, allowing us to go vertical for some big plays. We wrapped up the game with our ability to run the football.

On defense, we needed to shore up our run defense and we did that, holding the Bombers to 47 yards rushing, Run the football, protect the quarterback, shut down the opposition run and get some pressure on the quarterback. Those were the keys to the game and we got them done at a standard that enabled us to win this game solidly.
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25103
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

Must be frustrating for the Bombers when they knew the Lions were going to run the football but they couldn't stop them.
User avatar
pennw
Legend
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Chilliwack

Sir Purrcival wrote: Our O is still very hit and miss and of the 101 rushing yards, Harris got tonight, probably 40 of them came in the last drive in garbage time.
I can't agree with this statement . When the Lions went to the ground attack it was still a 7 point game even though it was late in the game , hardly garbage time . The bombers badly needed to stop our run and couldn't even thought they knew it was coming at that point of the game .Almost all the offense from that point on was running plays outside of the one long TD pass to Manny. That first extensive running drive they got it into FG range and PM put us ahead by 10 . And yes at the end after getting the big lead they finished off running but it was not lots of garbage time yards as they did not have that big lead until very late .It was more case of getting it done when they needed to , not saying the Team doesn't have more work to do but I'll give credit when it's due .
User avatar
pennw
Legend
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Chilliwack

Just hoping that our O-line has it turned around for the home stretch . With Angus writing that piece along with LU's article on the O-line seems maybe the spotlight is finally on Dan Dorazio where it should be .Wally's comments seem to indicate his focus on the o-line too . Simplifying seems to be the key to better results. Worked late last year and did help yesterdays game , so it may be some intervention from WB once again we are seeing . Don't know what it is with Dorazio and his overly complex system , why he is so insistent upon it when it keeps getting such poor results , compared to the simple schemes that work . Hoping next season we transition on from Dorazio , with Bates waiting in the wings or even bring in Angus Reid to coach the O-line . The heat seems on DD now , and it it is well deserved . Can't see Wally Bouno liking that media attention , especially not when it came from Angus Read.
User avatar
cromartie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:31 pm
Location: Cleveland, usually

Blitz wrote:We beat the Bombers because our offence contributed to our defense. Our offence played well overall, for these simple reasons -

1. We used many more tight end sets than usual with an extra lineman and Lumbala lined up as the tight ends.

2. We rushed the football more than 20 times

3. We rushed for 165 yards - a huge difference than our previous three games.

The run helped with pass protection and opened up the passing attack, allowing us to go vertical for some big plays. We wrapped up the game with our ability to run the football.
First off, kudos to whoever hung the "Parks Department" sign. That was pretty funny.

Some thoughts on this.

I would submit that the only reason you saw Lumbala on the field as much as you did was because, with injuries to Taylor and Haidera, the depth chart was getting thin.

Winnipeg doesn't disguise much on defence. In the first half, they sent Maurice Leggett three times on a short side blitz on 2nd and long, two of which resulted in sacks against a five man line. The third time it happened, you would think someone would have noticed and picked it up. Nope.

Like the Don Matthews coached Alouettes of the early 'aughts, when they put seven men on the line of scrimmage, they were sending seven men. Consistently.

The third drive of the second half is indicative of what really irritates me about this offense. Facing a consistent seven man rush, the first two plays featured seven men on the line of scrimmage, the results were an 11 yard pass and a 14 yard rush. The third play was a six man offensive line, which was a pass to Logan for no gain (thanks to a missed downfield block). The fourth play was an old Jacqueball special, a five man line with trips in tight to the short side, and that resulted in a 14 yard gain.

Then, it was a five man line, the results of which were: Harris stuffed, incompletion, punt.

In the end, we wore them down, which is fine. But it's as much about getting your line some help, understanding what your opponent is doing and adjusting to it as it is simplifying the blocking schemes. And we don't adjust very well.
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

pennw wrote:
Sir Purrcival wrote: Our O is still very hit and miss and of the 101 rushing yards, Harris got tonight, probably 40 of them came in the last drive in garbage time.
I can't agree with this statement . When the Lions went to the ground attack it was still a 7 point game even though it was late in the game , hardly garbage time . The bombers badly needed to stop our run and couldn't even thought they knew it was coming at that point of the game .Almost all the offense from that point on was running plays outside of the one long TD pass to Manny. That first extensive running drive they got it into FG range and PM put us ahead by 10 . And yes at the end after getting the big lead they finished off running but it was not lots of garbage time yards as they did not have that big lead until very late .It was more case of getting it done when they needed to , not saying the Team doesn't have more work to do but I'll give credit when it's due .
I respect the right to your opinion but I'm not sure what you object to when I say hit and miss. They did manage to do some things on offense but it was anything but steady. They struggled to get even first downs in the 3rd quarter and came away with a single point. At what point do you consider garbage time to start? When the "last drive" was going and it was 26 to 9, did that not constitute garbage time? The point that I was trying to drive at is that despite what the stats said, the rush game was not all that impressive. It was decent at times but there were a lot of stuffs as well. When you have two running backs the caliber of Logan and Harris, you would hope that it would be a lot more dominant throughout the game. It wasn't until late. It was enough but considering that the team that they were facing had lost 3 of 4 and their QB for the entire second half, it was hardly an overpowering performance.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
User avatar
David
Team Captain
Posts: 9370
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:23 am
Location: Vancouver (Kitsilano)

Sir Purrcival, I am willing to cut the Lions' offense a bit of slack. Losing Courtney Taylor at the ranger slot was a big blow (sure, nothing compared to the Bombers losing Willy, but still...) then compounded when we lost Hairdara. I would say there was only one sub-par quarter in which we looked like we were playing in quicksand with hip waders and that was the 3rd quarter. Prior to and after, I would say we moved the quite well.


DH :cool:
Roar, You Lions, Roar
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

And I acknowledge that they did do some things on offense but they still have lots of room for improvement which most people would generally agree with. Maybe I seem unduly harsh but I didn't think so. It took a last minute drive in the first half before they finally scored a TD (the first in 3 games). Before that a whopping 8 points in the first half, 2 of which were gifted to us by the Bombers. Moving the ball doesn't count for much if it doesn't translate to points. You'd think that maybe they would come out for the 3rd Quarter and really take command of the game. Nope. They did OK. and the result worked out but it is far too easy in any CFL game for a team to have a lead and lose it in a blink. Just ask the Argo's
I get it, they are a work in progress, Rome wasn't built in a day and all that but there isn't any value in blowing smoke either. They won the game, they showed some good positives but they showed a lot of the same old, same old in that game too. Only my opinion mind you but it is what it is.
Last edited by Sir Purrcival on Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25103
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

A win tends to mask a lot of the deficiencies. Offence is still a work in progress ........... a lot of work to be done.
leo4life
All Star
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: vancouver

LionKing you are on the money...this team tends to go back to what doesnt work; Empty sets 5/6 receivers not enough touches for our running backs & Dorazio loves his complex blocking schemes...im sure we will see them again...lots of work to do on O
User avatar
cromartie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:31 pm
Location: Cleveland, usually

leo4life wrote:LionKing you are on the money...this team tends to go back to what doesnt work; Empty sets 5/6 receivers not enough touches for our running backs & Dorazio loves his complex blocking schemes...im sure we will see them again...lots of work to do on O
I remember seven years ago, in a game in BC against Montreal, Rob Murphy got so upset at the offensive braintrust that he made them a deal. Call nothing but run plays on the next drive, and they would score a touchdown.

And IIRC, that's exactly what happened. The Lions ran nine straight times behind Joe Smith, ran it using the five offensive linemen and Lyle Green, and scored a TD before halftime.

For those of you who assert that there is enough talent on this team to win, and that coaching is the problem, I see what you're saying now. The big problem here is that it has been a very, very long time since we had an offensive braintrust that could adjust to what defenses throw at us over the course of a game. To a lesser extent, this happens to us on defence too (particularly when we blitz on second and long, which is a bad down/distance combination to blitz on, but everyone makes that mistake) but it's a chronic problem on offense. And if we don't gain this capability to do better self scouting and better in game adjustments, we're headed for another exit earlier than our talent level would seem to indicate.
User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

http://bclions.com/article/roar-review-winnipeg-bc

Forgot about this nugget of information. With the win on Saturday the Lions are over .500 for the first time in their long history as a result of collecting the franchises 502nd WIN!

IIRC, we teased this percentage point late last season (which really MEANS NOTHING) but its taken a few wins to get us finally into the BLACK. I know different CFL teams we have various records against. For e.g. I think the Bombers over the decades have won 10 more games in our head2heads (2 ties!). Some teams we will always have a great record against (Ottawa Renegades for e.g.) because the team is now defunct.

This helps me realize how lucky I am as a Lions fan. In the years I've followed the Lions they've been close to .500 or above most years. The last 10 or so under Buono have been especially lopsided in the wins department. So that means that there were lots of lean years in the wins department, if we are only getting to .500 All-time NOW. Thanks to all the long time Leos fans who cheered on in spite of those seasons with more losses than wins. I've suffered through a few here and there but there have obviously be quite a few years that were really bad in the wins department.
User avatar
Rammer
Team Captain
Posts: 22320
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:04 pm
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.

notahomer wrote:http://bclions.com/article/roar-review-winnipeg-bc

Forgot about this nugget of information. With the win on Saturday the Lions are over .500 for the first time in their long history as a result of collecting the franchises 502nd WIN!

IIRC, we teased this percentage point late last season (which really MEANS NOTHING) but its taken a few wins to get us finally into the BLACK. I know different CFL teams we have various records against. For e.g. I think the Bombers over the decades have won 10 more games in our head2heads (2 ties!). Some teams we will always have a great record against (Ottawa Renegades for e.g.) because the team is now defunct.

This helps me realize how lucky I am as a Lions fan. In the years I've followed the Lions they've been close to .500 or above most years. The last 10 or so under Buono have been especially lopsided in the wins department. So that means that there were lots of lean years in the wins department, if we are only getting to .500 All-time NOW. Thanks to all the long time Leos fans who cheered on in spite of those seasons with more losses than wins. I've suffered through a few here and there but there have obviously be quite a few years that were really bad in the wins department.
I would suggest that most contributors on this board cheered occasionally for the 70's teams. Only occasionally due to the amount of positives there were during those lean years.
Entertainment value = an all time low
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9794
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

sj-roc wrote:
Toppy Vann wrote:The command centre did the review as it was a scoring play. It had zero to do with the Stadium or the teams involved. Granted Wpg's HC was sure smiling when it was called out of bounds as it gave them the ball at the 38.
My understanding is that only plays that result in SCORES by on-field ruling get the automatic review treatment. So this wouldn't apply here (the FG was missed, no score there; the ball carrier was deemed out of goal, no score there either). What about plays where the ball gets spotted down inside the 1-yard line? Are these ever AR'ed to determine if there were a missed TD or safety, as the case may be? I'm not aware that this is the standard MO.

At any rate it's pure amateur hour that game ops would undermine our own team like this. At least make O'Shea throw the flag if he wants the yards.
This says all kicking plays too are reviewed. Higgins oversaw this back in 2012 and it appears the coaches wanted kicking plays in for review.
It was believed that the rules committee would only recommend nonkicking scores be reviewed without costing a coach a challenge attempt, but the group of coaches, general managers, team presidents, league personnel and a players’ association rep also included converts and field goals.

“Even if you only get one correct per year that wouldn’t have been correct, it’s worth it,” said Tom Higgins, the CFL’s director of officiating.

“Scoring plays have a great impact on the outcome of a game and putting in additional measures to ensure those calls are correct is prudent. When considering these types of changes, we also must consider the flow of the game and the duration of any challenge. For the vast majority of scoring plays, we believe that the replay official will confirm the scoring plays before the next play without a delay.

“The biggest challenge (to a kick review) is camera angles. There are 10 cameras in use during a regular-season game, as compared to 32 in the Grey Cup.”

Higgins says that the reviews won’t slow the game down.
http://www.thespec.com/sports-story/223 ... y-reviews/
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
Post Reply