Lions at Als - Post Game Comments

[Sir Purrcival]

I am questioning the wisdom of the 2 point convert attempts, period. I know that every once in awhile you may need one of these things but to run them for the sake of running them and not doing very well in them is just plain silly IMO. We are leaving points on the field and seeing as we have a kicker who isn't that sure fire on his FG's either, I am thinking that he should be getting all reps he can for a start. At some point as well, is that lost point going to cost us a game? I don't want to end up losing a game at some point because Wally is passing up the safer bet. It is also an emotional let down. You come to expect 7 points from a TD and somehow the good stuff garnered from scoring is diminished when you don't get the full score.

[CardiacKid]

My guess is that he was making a point about protecting the QB. It was an obvious headshot that should have been called but wasn't challengable. Ironically, if it had been ruled a fumble, Wally almost certainly would have won the challenge, in which case it would have been Lions ball 1st down from the 1.

Yeah, you could see Wally make some gestures to his head while talking with the refs during that challenge. It was a fairly substantial knock to the head of Jennings. I don't recall which game it was earlier this year but Wally threw what I thought was a symbolic challenge flag, mostly for the benefit of team spirit. So there are other ways a challenge can benefit a team.

[CardiacKid]

I am questioning the wisdom of the 2 point convert attempts, period. I know that every once in awhile you may need one of these things but to run them for the sake of running them and not doing very well in them is just plain silly IMO. We are leaving points on the field and seeing as we have a kicker who isn't that sure fire on his FG's either, I am thinking that he should be getting all reps he can for a start. At some point as well, is that lost point going to cost us a game? I don't want to end up losing a game at some point because Wally is passing up the safer bet. It is also an emotional let down. You come to expect 7 points from a TD and somehow the good stuff garnered from scoring is diminished when you don't get the full score.

The execution of the 2 point converts have been kinda dicey this year and could stand some work. But I like the philosophy of going for 2; even if you only make 50% of them, you break even when in comparison to 100% success rate with the 1 point convert. Anyone got access to the stats showing the breakdown of the converts and the success rate?

[Sir Purrcival]

Unfortunately, our kicking game can also stand some work and missed FG's are even more painful than missed 2pt conversions.

[almo89]

The most impressive thing I saw in the game was the 7 minute drive in the fourth quarter. Pretty much all put the nail in the coffin at that point by kicking the field goal and making it a 3 score game.

[DanoT]

The most impressive thing I saw in the game was the 7 minute drive in the fourth quarter. Pretty much all put the nail in the coffin at that point by kicking the field goal and making it a 3 score game.

With 10 minutes left I thought that the Lions need one of those 6 minute late game statement drives and as almost89 points out, it was a 7 minute drive and capped by a FG=end of the game.

[B.C.FAN]

I am questioning the wisdom of the 2 point convert attempts, period. I know that every once in awhile you may need one of these things but to run them for the sake of running them and not doing very well in them is just plain silly IMO. We are leaving points on the field and seeing as we have a kicker who isn't that sure fire on his FG's either, I am thinking that he should be getting all reps he can for a start. At some point as well, is that lost point going to cost us a game? I don't want to end up losing a game at some point because Wally is passing up the safer bet. It is also an emotional let down. You come to expect 7 points from a TD and somehow the good stuff garnered from scoring is diminished when you don't get the full score.

The execution of the 2 point converts have been kinda dicey this year and could stand some work. But I like the philosophy of going for 2; even if you only make 50% of them, you break even when in comparison to 100% success rate with the 1 point convert. Anyone got access to the stats showing the breakdown of the converts and the success rate?

Statistically, a 2-point attempt is generally a better option than a 1-point attempt. Going into this week, teams had made 89.1% of their 1-point attempts (0.891 points per attempt) and 63.2% of their 2-point attempts (1.264 points per attempt). The Lions were a purrfect 100% on 1-point attempts through five games and led the league with 4 successful 2-point attempts. I'm impressed with Wally's forward thinking in using the new convert rules.

[Blitz]

I am questioning the wisdom of the 2 point convert attempts, period. I know that every once in awhile you may need one of these things but to run them for the sake of running them and not doing very well in them is just plain silly IMO. We are leaving points on the field and seeing as we have a kicker who isn't that sure fire on his FG's either, I am thinking that he should be getting all reps he can for a start. At some point as well, is that lost point going to cost us a game? I don't want to end up losing a game at some point because Wally is passing up the safer bet. It is also an emotional let down. You come to expect 7 points from a TD and somehow the good stuff garnered from scoring is diminished when you don't get the full score.

The execution of the 2 point converts have been kinda dicey this year and could stand some work. But I like the philosophy of going for 2; even if you only make 50% of them, you break even when in comparison to 100% success rate with the 1 point convert. Anyone got access to the stats showing the breakdown of the converts and the success rate?

Statistically, a 2-point attempt is generally a better option than a 1-point attempt. Going into this week, teams had made 89.1% of their 1-point attempts (0.891 points per attempt) and 63.2% of their 2-point attempts (1.264 points per attempt). The Lions were a purrfect 100% on 1-point attempts through five games and led the league with 4 successful 2-point attempts. I'm impressed with Wally's forward thinking in using the new convert rules.

I'm ok with the two point convert attempts. I really wonder about putting in a cold quarterback to throw the football in these situations. Why not keep Jennings in?

If we want to make sure Lulay gets some reps or involved, this is not the best way of doing it.

A big difference this season, from last, is our ability to sack the quarterback. We got six sacks in this game. Bazzie leads the CFL in quarterback sacks, with 6 quarterback sacks, two more than Chick, Laurent, and Bowman, who are tied for 2nd with 4 sacks each.

We are presently tied with Hamilton for the most quarterback sacks in the CFL (22 sacks). Last season, we had 48 sacks for the season. This season, at our present rate, we're on track for 66 quarterback sacks for the season.

Last season our defense finished 6th in the CFL, in terms of points allowed. This season, so far, we've given up the least points in the CFL. Jennings has been very, very good in his last 3 games and he has been a difference maker as our starting quarterback out of the gate this season. But our improved defence has also been a very important part of our story this year. Having Westerman back at defensive tackle, the depth of our defensive line, the additions of Purifoy and Edem, the play of our secondary, including our depth there, and more effective blitzes have all played a role.

We're continuing to improve offensively. We are now second in the CFL in scoring points, second in rushing and 4th in passing yards.

This week showed the improved depth of this Leo team. We didn't have this kind of depth last year, both on offence and defence, where there were players on the roster who could step in, due to injury, and play. We had 5 players out of our defensive lineup, due to injury, against Montreal and still played well.

[Hambone]

Statistically, a 2-point attempt is generally a better option than a 1-point attempt. Going into this week, teams had made 89.1% of their 1-point attempts (0.891 points per attempt) and 63.2% of their 2-point attempts (1.264 points per attempt). The Lions were a purrfect 100% on 1-point attempts through five games and led the league with 4 successful 2-point attempts. I'm impressed with Wally's forward thinking in using the new convert rules.

Just a matter of playing the percentages. Make 2 out of 3 and you've gained a point. Make 1 out of 3 and you've only surrendered a single. The 1 point attempt is no longer the absolute guarantee it used to be. I get the impression that Wally's philosophy now is to go for 2 for the first 3 quarters of the game. After that let the point differential determine whether to go for 1 or 2.

[David]

I wouldn't rule out a cagey coach like Wally was just looking to give his defense a rest on that challenge, after a quick 2 and out by the offense. Even the ref seemed confused when he came back and simply said, "the ruling on the field stands" (without actually identifying what the challenge was!), lol.


DH

My guess is that he was making a point about protecting the QB. It was an obvious headshot that should have been called but wasn't challengable. Ironically, if it had been ruled a fumble, Wally almost certainly would have won the challenge, in which case it would have been Lions ball 1st down from the 1.

No, I was actually referring to the earlier failed challenge after a 2nd down play that looked like it was tossed, "just 'cuz." That's the one in which I believe Wally was trying to give his defense more time to regroup on the sideline after a "2 and out" by the O (I believe it was following the fumble recovery by our D where some of the players may have been gassed). Just a guess, nothing to base it on.

[zeppo]

No, I was actually referring to the earlier failed challenge after a 2nd down play that looked like it was tossed, "just 'cuz." That's the one in which I believe Wally was trying to give his defense more time to regroup on the sideline after a "2 and out" by the O (I believe it was following the fumble recovery by our D where some of the players may have been gassed). Just a guess, nothing to base it on.

You could be right. On that occasion Wally challenged "illegal contact", which he has tried several times so far this
season, and not won even once.

[zeppo]

A big difference this season, from last, is our ability to sack the quarterback. We got six sacks in this game. Bazzie leads the CFL in quarterback sacks, with 6 quarterback sacks, two more than Chick, Laurent, and Bowman, who are tied for 2nd with 4 sacks each.

Not bad for a defence that often rushes three, and were missing their best pass rusher for two out of the six games they have played.

[zeppo]

The execution of the 2 point converts have been kinda dicey this year and could stand some work. But I like the philosophy of going for 2; even if you only make 50% of them, you break even when in comparison to 100% success rate with the 1 point convert. Anyone got access to the stats showing the breakdown of the converts and the success rate?
Statistically, a 2-point attempt is generally a better option than a 1-point attempt. Going into this week, teams had made 89.1% of their 1-point attempts (0.891 points per attempt) and 63.2% of their 2-point attempts (1.264 points per attempt). The Lions were a purrfect 100% on 1-point attempts through five games and led the league with 4 successful 2-point attempts. I'm impressed with Wally's forward thinking in using the new convert rules.

Fair enough. But, IMO, the chances of actually making those conversions would be better if Jennings ran them rather than a stone cold Lulay.

[zeppo]

My guess is that he was making a point about protecting the QB. It was an obvious headshot that should have been called but wasn't challengable.

I think that you're right. However, his probable motivation on this occasion does not excuse his extremely poor record on challenges
so far this season. I think that he is either one for nine or one for ten, with his only win being a "roughing the passer" challenge
involving a Roughrider who went low on Jennings. During the Stampeder game, he challenged "illegal contact" twice, and lost both
of them, resulting in a lost time-out which the Lions could have used in the last minute. It is admirable to stand up for your players,
but Wally needs to be a lot more thoughtful before tossing the challenge flag.

Now, about the head shot. I personally think that it should have been called "unnecessary roughness". However, Jennings should not
have been put into a situation where he thought it necessary to attempt to dive over the line of scrimmage head first. If the
quarterback sneak had been run correctly, Jennings would have gotten low and followed one of this offensive linemen into the end zone
rather than leave himself vulnerable on the top of the pile. As has been the case several times this season, the offensive linemen were
stood up at the line of scrimmage, and got absolutely zero push. With the defence one yard off the ball, and knowledge of the snap count,
making a yard on a quarterback sneak should be automatic.

[Blitz]

My guess is that he was making a point about protecting the QB. It was an obvious headshot that should have been called but wasn't challengable.

I think that you're right. However, his probable motivation on this occasion does not excuse his extremely poor record on challenges
so far this season. I think that he is either one for nine or one for ten, with his only win being a "roughing the passer" challenge
involving a Roughrider who went low on Jennings. During the Stampeder game, he challenged "illegal contact" twice, and lost both
of them, resulting in a lost time-out which the Lions could have used in the last minute. It is admirable to stand up for your players,
but Wally needs to be a lot more thoughtful before tossing the challenge flag.

Now, about the head shot. I personally think that it should have been called "unnecessary roughness". However, Jennings should not
have been put into a situation where he thought it necessary to attempt to dive over the line of scrimmage head first. If the
quarterback sneak had been run correctly, Jennings would have gotten low and followed one of this offensive linemen into the end zone
rather than leave himself vulnerable on the top of the pile. As has been the case several times this season, the offensive linemen were
stood up at the line of scrimmage, and got absolutely zero push. With the defence one yard off the ball, and knowledge of the snap count,
making a yard on a quarterback sneak should be automatic.

If you go back and look at Wally's history, in terms of his decision making in games (and I'm not talking about challenges) one can find a lot of very questionable decision making regarding when to punt, kick a field goal, gamble, manage the clock, call a time out, etc. So his dubious record on challenges is not out of the norm, in terms of game decision making processes.

The key thing is that, over his career, he has gotten the big picture right, much more often than not, in terms of team chemistry, discipline, expectations, making changes etc. That has what has made him a winner.