Lions 41 - Ottawa 3 -- 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
Rammer
Team Captain
Posts: 22320
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:04 pm
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.

“When you had guys playing their first game, S.J. Haidara and Stephen Adekolu being so young, Ernest Jackson and Kito (Poblah) maturing, having Joe on the sidelines with communication after every drive paid dividends. Travis gave us vision in a sterile enrivonment,” Benevides said.
No kidding that the play selection based on what the oppositioni was doing was sterile, happy that Lulay was able to unsterilize the O to the point of being infectious.

I think tha Paopao is a field level guy from here on in, and Lulay is earning his paycheque for the first time this season.
Entertainment value = an all time low
User avatar
DanoT
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4315
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

The key that I saw , was that BC did NOT try to force running plays early in the game like they usually do when the box is stacked , only to get stuffed resulting in the usual 2 and out pattern . Instead went to almost all pass plays early and made those vertical pass plays. Then introduced run plays later in the game more as the defense was forced out of stacking the box . The whole 50% pass/run play on first down formula is what was making the the BC offense so predictable . The passes previously had also been of the short variety on first down when they went pass first , all allowing defenses to stack the box and force lots of 2 and outs. The whole "keep doing what is working" the previous play ,is what makes an offense predicable . Mixing things up makes things unpredictable and harder for defenses to stop . If you go, lets say , 5 run plays in a row you will probably be punting the ball after the 5th attempt . Likely won't get to the 5th play in the first place . Nice to see a break in some old patterns even if it was 'just Ottawa' .[/quote]

Establish the passing game, then incorporate the run. Usually it's the other way around.[/quote] And that is what makes it predictable ; it's the usual way . Predictable is easy to defend , it happens to BC far too much with our 50% first down formula .[/quote]

Prior to the last game against the Bombers, Harris set a "team rushing goal of 250 yards", then the Lions came out passing with Glenn going 14/15 in the first half. Afterward Harris jokingly called it a Jedi Mind Trick. :rotf: It would seem that for the recent Ottawa game the Lions went back to the Jedi Mind Trick Formula. :rockin:
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12590
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

Blitz wrote:
Hambone wrote:Steward, Hardrick, Norman, Fabien and Olafioye would make for a young, athletic OL with tremendous upside. Olafioye who doesn't turn 27 until December would be the wiley old veteran of the bunch.
I think that would be an excellent offensive line. My concern is back up center if Norman ever got hurt. I also would like to see us either draft a player who played center in college or have an import who was learning the position on the roster for next year. It would give us options.
I believe Cam Thorn replaced Norman at centre when Beck replaced Glenn at QB with about 12 minutes left in the fourth quarter. Thorn seemed to play extremely well. If Norman doesn't progress, I can see Thorn challenging him for the starter's job next year.
User avatar
cromartie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:31 pm
Location: Cleveland, usually

DanoT wrote:The key that I saw , was that BC did NOT try to force running plays early in the game like they usually do when the box is stacked , only to get stuffed resulting in the usual 2 and out pattern . Instead went to almost all pass plays early and made those vertical pass plays. Then introduced run plays later in the game more as the defense was forced out of stacking the box . The whole 50% pass/run play on first down formula is what was making the the BC offense so predictable . The passes previously had also been of the short variety on first down when they went pass first , all allowing defenses to stack the box and force lots of 2 and outs. The whole "keep doing what is working" the previous play ,is what makes an offense predicable . Mixing things up makes things unpredictable and harder for defenses to stop . If you go, lets say , 5 run plays in a row you will probably be punting the ball after the 5th attempt . Likely won't get to the 5th play in the first place . Nice to see a break in some old patterns even if it was 'just Ottawa'

Establish the passing game, then incorporate the run. Usually it's the other way around. And that is what makes it predictable ; it's the usual way . Predictable is easy to defend , it happens to BC far too much with our 50% first down formula .

Prior to the last game against the Bombers, Harris set a "team rushing goal of 250 yards", then the Lions came out passing with Glenn going 14/15 in the first half. Afterward Harris jokingly called it a Jedi Mind Trick. :rotf: It would seem that for the recent Ottawa game the Lions went back to the Jedi Mind Trick Formula. :rockin:
Just a real quick thought on this.

The template for the offense, at least early in the season, was to try and establish the vertical passing game first, then run the ball. If the offense couldn't establish the deep vertical passing game first, it struggled, and most of the season it has struggled because of it. Sometimes it's Glenn. Sometimes it's receivers dropping the ball. Sometimes it's line protection.

The common misnomer in professional football is that you have to establish the run to win. This is false. You do not run to win. You run because you are winning.

Only in rare instances, such as our 2007 offensive line, and in college level mismatches, can you run the ball constantly and win the game.

I'm less critical of running on first down, because I believe that it can be an important component of keeping defenses off balance, sets up play action opportunities later on, and creates a time of possession advantage. Whether you should walk in with 50% or not, I won't speak to.
Last edited by cromartie on Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

The common misnomer in professional football is that you have to establish the run to win. This is false. You do not run to win. You run because you are winning.

Only in rare instances, such as our 2007 offensive line, and in college level mismatches, can you run the ball constantly and win the game.

I'm less critical of running on first down, because I believe that it can be an important component of keeping defenses off balance, sets up play action opportunities later on, and creates a time of possession advantage. Whether you should walk in with 50% or not, I won't speak to. cromartie
I don't have any problem with a run/pass ratio of 50/50 cro on first down over an entire season. Obviously with that ratio the defense doesn't know if you are going to run or pass unless you tip them off by tendency (formation, personnel, motion etc) However I also don't have any problem with a 30/70 run pass ratio if the team is a very good passing team and not so good a running team and vice-versa.

But each game is different and each defense you play is different and defenses make adjustments within a game. A team just needs to take advantage of whatever the defense is giving them and not try to fight something that is stacked against them (like when a defense loads the box on first down).

I liked the fact that Lulay was in the spotters booth and PaoPao was on the sidelines. Lulay knows our offence better than PaoPao and has looked at CFL opposition defenses a lot more recently than PaoPao has...while Joe is a calm, sage guy so having a receivers coach on the sidelines was probably an asset, although I think good pass blocking and taking Ottawa deep against man defense was much more important than either.

I still really believe the type of offensive system a team uses, along with play calling, are much more important than often given credit. I learned that the hard way personally. I usually don't discuss things on Lionbackers in this way but one example I want to share comes from a different sport

At one point in my life I was asked to coach a Senior Mens Basketball team. The team was comprised of one half ex-university basketball players and one half just very good basketball athletes. The team was considered very talented but not playing to its potential and also, over 3 previous seasons, had been beaten handily by its nearest competitor each and every game they had played. The previous coach stepped aside to become the GM as well as serve as my assistant coach.

The previous coach had tried two different offensive systems without great success. I came in and brought in a system that had been very successful for me in the past and it also seemed like a good fit for the players that I was coaching. It didn't work either. Half-way through that first season, I came to the conclusion, as did the GM/Assistant Coach before me, that while the squad had very talented individuals it was never going to jell into a championship team. We saw it as both a lack of chemistry and a lack of execution - they just didn't play well together...even though they were unselfish and were all considered 'team' type of guys.

Frustrated, one evening, I decided to blow up what I was doing, thinking anything might be better. I wrote down the strengths of each individual player and designed a brand new offensive system. I didn't hold out a lot of hope. With only a few practices, we played the same team that had dominated us in previous seasons and that season. We had them down 65-12 at half time and won the game as handily. I was hopeful but guessed the win was probably an aberration and they had taken us for granted. With basically the same players on both sides, as it had been for three seasons before, we never lost to them again for the next two years and went on to win the championship in that first year.

In some ways it was almost a fluke but it taught me, as a young coach, that systems don't just matter, they can matter A LOT.

Yes, we played Ottawa (but they have played very good defense at times this season) and yes, Ottawa played a lot of man defense but more than Lulay in the spotter booth or PaoPao on the sidelines but we also did a lot of things differently offensively against Ottowa, scheme wise and play call wise, in this game, and I believe it was the most important difference.

And I agree with you cromartie...you run the football because you are winning...and you run the football when its wise to do so.
"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)
User avatar
pennw
Legend
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Chilliwack

Blitz wrote: And I agree with you cromartie...you run the football because you are winning...and you run the football when its wise to do so.
Basically what I was saying too . We have been trying too hard in the recent past to establishing a the run early in games when it was stacked against us resulting in lots of 2 and outs . We did not do that this time and the results speak for them selves . In this game we came out passing , forcing the D to try and stop the vertical pass which opened up the underneath stuff .
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9793
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

Blitz wrote:
The common misnomer in professional football is that you have to establish the run to win. This is false. You do not run to win. You run because you are winning.

Only in rare instances, such as our 2007 offensive line, and in college level mismatches, can you run the ball constantly and win the game.

I'm less critical of running on first down, because I believe that it can be an important component of keeping defenses off balance, sets up play action opportunities later on, and creates a time of possession advantage. Whether you should walk in with 50% or not, I won't speak to. cromartie
I don't have any problem with a run/pass ratio of 50/50 cro on first down over an entire season. Obviously with that ratio the defense doesn't know if you are going to run or pass unless you tip them off by tendency (formation, personnel, motion etc) However I also don't have any problem with a 30/70 run pass ratio if the team is a very good passing team and not so good a running team and vice-versa.

But each game is different and each defense you play is different and defenses make adjustments within a game. A team just needs to take advantage of whatever the defense is giving them and not try to fight something that is stacked against them (like when a defense loads the box on first down).

I liked the fact that Lulay was in the spotters booth and PaoPao was on the sidelines. Lulay knows our offence better than PaoPao and has looked at CFL opposition defenses a lot more recently than PaoPao has...while Joe is a calm, sage guy so having a receivers coach on the sidelines was probably an asset, although I think good pass blocking and taking Ottawa deep against man defense was much more important than either.

I still really believe the type of offensive system a team uses, along with play calling, are much more important than often given credit. I learned that the hard way personally. I usually don't discuss things on Lionbackers in this way but one example I want to share comes from a different sport

At one point in my life I was asked to coach a Senior Mens Basketball team. The team was comprised of one half ex-university basketball players and one half just very good basketball athletes. The team was considered very talented but not playing to its potential and also, over 3 previous seasons, had been beaten handily by its nearest competitor each and every game they had played. The previous coach stepped aside to become the GM as well as serve as my assistant coach.

The previous coach had tried two different offensive systems without great success. I came in and brought in a system that had been very successful for me in the past and it also seemed like a good fit for the players that I was coaching. It didn't work either. Half-way through that first season, I came to the conclusion, as did the GM/Assistant Coach before me, that while the squad had very talented individuals it was never going to jell into a championship team. We saw it as both a lack of chemistry and a lack of execution - they just didn't play well together...even though they were unselfish and were all considered 'team' type of guys.

Frustrated, one evening, I decided to blow up what I was doing, thinking anything might be better. I wrote down the strengths of each individual player and designed a brand new offensive system. I didn't hold out a lot of hope. With only a few practices, we played the same team that had dominated us in previous seasons and that season. We had them down 65-12 at half time and won the game as handily. I was hopeful but guessed the win was probably an aberration and they had taken us for granted. With basically the same players on both sides, as it had been for three seasons before, we never lost to them again for the next two years and went on to win the championship in that first year.

In some ways it was almost a fluke but it taught me, as a young coach, that systems don't just matter, they can matter A LOT.

Yes, we played Ottawa (but they have played very good defense at times this season) and yes, Ottawa played a lot of man defense but more than Lulay in the spotter booth or PaoPao on the sidelines but we also did a lot of things differently offensively against Ottowa, scheme wise and play call wise, in this game, and I believe it was the most important difference.

And I agree with you cromartie...you run the football because you are winning...and you run the football when its wise to do so.
Great coaching story, Blitz.

Basketball was never my game - played a few years but it was the ONLY game I played where I felt size mattered. I was fine in football as even as a DB my ball sense replaced height disadvantage.

Not sure how you put in your system but in soccer coaching with men I did things that some older vets at first didn't like when I was blending former pros/top university players and university age students and grads together. We did shadow play with no opponent - up and down the field starting from the goal and go the length of the field and back. Not sure if basketball does that with no opponent other than maybe to put in a new system. I did it free flow but required the ball to be moving constantly and sometimes even 1, 2, 3 touch max.

From football I played for years for Larry Reda and he believed in two things:
1. Play tough even in practice. Our practices were tougher than games! I loved practices but we got some injuries there - but in games we never got hurt - other teams did.

2. Schemes - he brought in innovative schemes with names like Bears Special xxxxx and we had a large play book as he'd put it in the summer when we weren't supposed to be practicing. Got caught a few times ...lol. Opposing coach is coming out on the field and we're in shorts and Larry's yelling out 32 fake pitch pass on 2 and moments later telling the guy 'we're just out playing touch' lol.

What came with the schemes was the players absolutely belief in what we were doing. His play calls from the bench would shock us at times but it'd come with "tell them we're going on the way." Even pros must believe and at times I think the Lions know their run game plays were too predictable, there'd be a drop off in execution albeit imperceptibly and plays fail.

Some of the Lions bizarre training - lying down and roll over 3 times to do a kick off return is ridiculous as it is not a true simulation of a game situation. I know pros worry about practice injury but sometimes fun plays and just ending or starting with fun stuff is good.

For example, I'd try the final kick return to win where you have to score or lose and even the pass an kick to the end zone plays to set up that situation.

I coached baseball and my championship teams (last year I coached we won Burnaby - all of it - 14, 15 year olds) would practice hot box EVERY practice at the end. By that last year we had one where the entire infield and the the left fielder behind 3rd and the right fielder behind the Pitcher and Catcher had this guy in a run down. Even the opposing fans cheered that play. Their star apparently had never been caught but our guys were so prepared they got him eventually and it was clinical. They protected home at all costs and he was tagged out in the first third near 3rd. Even as 12 years I did this to give the guys something to look forward to as batting practice while necessary SUCKS for the non batter.

The Lions fail to give their players the right sense of what they can achieve when they bring out the new plays so freaking slowly as well as ever say how hard it is to teach run plays...
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

Re offensive philosophy, run, pass, et cetera ...

IMO You run to wear down the defence. You run to put the defenders on their heels. You run to prevent the D from getting their revs up going after the QB.

You run when they don't expect it. If they are coming hard, including blitz, that can open huge holes, with minimal help behind the LOS.

If you are opening up good holes, you run some more.

Even if your run game seems stuck in the mud, you still run enough to keep the D unsure.

Run / pass ratio can change drastically. Protect a lead? Run. Use the clock? Run. Come from behind? Pass more, with run mixed in.

Start of game. Get the big hogs involved. Better have a script. Or the run game can quickly get ignored.

No set ratio.

But there are many benefits to a vigorous run game. The hogs love it. The D hates it. It is all pain and effort and will. Ignore it at your peril.

Of course the passing game might be even more essential. Without it, it is unlikely you will be able to run the ball, as the D loads the box.

The run game is the cavalry and the infantry. The passing game is the air force. Both necessary.

Just some random thoughts behind the offensive philosophy of a team ...
.......

Toppy, by the way, I used to love the run down drill in coaching softball. Rainy day? Go inside the gym and practice run down. Good for both the runner and the team trying to trap. Without practice, the ball just gets thrown away far, far too often. We also used to put the team against a wire fence, practicing the fielding of grounders. Not everone's cup of tea. And we practiced over the shoulder catches in the outfield, amongst a myriad of more usual drills. As it happens we went undefeated one year, due to our prep.
.......

And Blitz, you and I have talked about basketball. Systems are key. For example, say a team does not press. Then you do not tax the energy, the skill or the coordination of the opponent. You give them an easy walk down court.

And of course, attacking a zone, MTM or combination are all different animals.
..........

Apologies for the reminiscences. Most bloggers don't want to hear war stories, no matter how sweet the memories are to the participants. LOL
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
Post Reply