Leos/Calgary Post Game Thoughts

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

footballtom
Rookie
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:09 pm

David wrote:
South Pender wrote:Do bums in seats really matter that much any more? On a terrific night for football against a good team, with the promise of an exciting game, merely 21,341 attend.
I honestly believe players take their cue from the surroundings (butts in the seats) and the energy in the building (noise level) - small and low - at least to start the game. Sure, they are professionals and should be suitably focused and self-motivated. But they're also human, and you can't tell me that athletes don't feed off the home crowd - good or bad. While it filled up toward the end of the first quarter, BC Place was embarrassingly sparse in certain sections with first place on the line (patrons sitting in Section 217 on the Stamps' side, 20-yard line could actually be counted during a TV timeout. That tells me that pricing is seriously out of whack).

The organization needs to figure things out. Quickly. Dennis Skulsky has often said "the best Marketing is winning." Evidently not. While TV numbers may be good, obviously not enough people (at least in the summer) deem the live experience of a Lions game to be the best value for their time and money. As a result, BC Place is no longer the intimidating place it once was, the on-field product suffers (not all, but for many home games), and the cycle continues.


DH :cool:

Skulsky knows nothing about running a business . How many business have a guarantee night .
User avatar
MikeAK
All Star
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:01 pm

David wrote:
South Pender wrote:Do bums in seats really matter that much any more? On a terrific night for football against a good team, with the promise of an exciting game, merely 21,341 attend.
I honestly believe players take their cue from the surroundings (butts in the seats) and the energy in the building (noise level) - small and low - at least to start the game. Sure, they are professionals and should be suitably focused and self-motivated. But they're also human, and you can't tell me that athletes don't feed off the home crowd - good or bad. While it filled up toward the end of the first quarter, BC Place was embarrassingly sparse in certain sections with first place on the line (patrons sitting in Section 217 on the Stamps' side, 20-yard line could actually be counted during a TV timeout. That tells me that pricing is seriously out of whack).

The organization needs to figure things out. Quickly. Dennis Skulsky has often said "the best Marketing is winning." Evidently not. While TV numbers may be good, obviously not enough people (at least in the summer) deem the live experience of a Lions game to be the best value for their time and money. As a result, BC Place is no longer the intimidating place it once was, the on-field product suffers (not all, but for many home games), and the cycle continues.


DH :cool:
I know there is a difference of opinion on the matter but I believe the lack of support/interest is a direct result of poor marketing, terrible pricing for tickets, and down right criminal robbery by concession prices. This isn't just a recent issue, it's been going on for over 5 years now. I know the concession is out of their hands, but the tickets and disconnect within the community is all on the Lions. They seem to have this idea about their product which the people clearly don't share. It wasn't that long ago when summer games had no problem drawing crowds. Fast forward to today and most people laugh when they see what it would cost to go to a game and have a dog and a flat beer. The organization is stunting it's own fan base growth. Mark my words, this team is going to have a real problem on their hands when us long time old school fans are gone. I don't see any new blood forging that bond with the team that we all did.
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

Wally said after the game that we were outcoached and outplayed.

In terms of being outcoached, Buono laid the responsibility on his offensive and defensive coordinators for game planning and himself for not having his team ready to play.

In terms of the players he said the protection for the quarterback was not good enough, receivers dropped footballs, and we missed tackles.

Buono said he knew what Calgary was doing...going play action and throwing to the flat. The question is "Why did we do nothing to adjust to Calgary's bread and butter plays to the flat all game long?" Buono has tons of experience as a Head Coach and was a former defensive coordinator. Washington is in his fourth season as a defensive coordinator. Its unacceptable to watch a team run the same thing over and over again...throws to the flat and hitch plays in the flat without adjusting.

Our Leos now are 7th in points scored against. Only Ottawa and Saskatchewan have given up more points. We can laugh at Chris Jones and the Riders play this season but the Riders are only giving up an average of 3 more points per game than our Leos. We're not trending in the right direction.

The game stats show how one sided the game last night was. Calgary had 25 first downs to our 12. They had 16 passing first downs to our 6. They had 422 yards of offence to our 221 yards. Calgary completed 75% of its passes while we completed less than 50% of our passes. Calgary's time of possession was 37:45. Ours was 22:15.

Shawn Gore was our leading receiver with 3 catches for 44 yds. Marco Iannuzzi had 3 catches for 35 yds. Calgary took our slot backs out of the game.

We held Calgary to an average of 4 yds. per rush. But we couldnt' stop Calgary's high percentage, efficient passing attack.

The talent between these two teams is very close. But Claybrooks and Dickenson completely outcoached Washington and Jones on each side of the football. Calgary had great game plans on both sides of the footoball. We did not nor could we come up with in game adjustments. This should have been a close game but instead we were badly outsmarted.

In the first half we moved the football at times but had to settle for field goals. Leone also missed one. In the first half we had Calgary's offence stopped twice but two defensive penalites allowed the drives to continue. One was an off-side, which is inexcusable ad the second was a illegal contact call. We also took holding penalties on special teams which put us into bad field position. If we hoped to mount a comeback, Rainey's fumble to start the second half was a real kick in the teeth for a team that was already struggling in this game.

Offensively, we have relied far too heavily on Jonathan Jennings making great throws and receivers making great catches. Over our previous four games its not as if Jennings has had easy throws. In fact many were difficult throws. Its not as if our receivers have been wide open either. Many have been great catches. You can't live on that recipe, with throws and catches with a high range of difficulty.

I don't blame Jennings for our loss. We expect too much of him. Bo Levi Mitchell is not asked to do what Jennings is being asked to do. Calgary gives Bo Levi a lot of high percentage pass plays.

We need to get our tailback more involved in the passing attack at times. We need more quick crosses, flat passes, hitches, etc. Calgary involved Messam and Harrison in their passing attack and used Cote deceptively. On our side of the football, we don't do the same.

While its ok to have Jennings be a gun slinger we also need more higher percentage first down plays in our offence. We need more diversity in our running and passing attack. Defensively, this was not a game in which Brooks would likely have made a big difference. Bo Levi had the ball out of his hands quickly on most plays, with his throws to the flat, while freezng our defensive line and linebackers with play action. Defenses know we rarely pass to Johnson and never screen to him.

Our offence encountered a lot of man defense last night and our quarterback was under a lot of pressure. That's where quick crosses, rub routes, quick flat and swing passes, etc. work effectively.

We also need to re-examine our offensive line personnel. O'Neil is a 36 year old backup lineman. He might have experience but Steward is a very athletic, strong, talented player. We need to grow with him at guard. Vaillencourt is an aggressive, huge guard. Its time to get him back in the lineup. I'm not so sure about Levy Adcock. Perhaps it was rust but he looked awful.
"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
DanoT
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4316
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

Great post Blitz as it covered most of what I was thinking.

That was one of the rare times when Wally admits that he got out coached

Levy Adcock was, no surprise, not in game shape. So why didn't the Lions rotate Hunter Steward to RT? or is Steward a LT only? OTOH with all the 2 and outs for the Lions and long drives by Stamps I guess Adcock was getting rest.

How is Steward suppose to learn the LG position if he backs up a 36 year old who may not be here next year? Based on the play of the O line, I would expect Steward and perhaps Vaillancourt to start next game.

Broken record time: When are we going to see some screen passes and quick developing plays? The Stamps on D were playing like they recognized the play call, pre snap, and at times were running the routes for the Lions receivers. Time to turn to a new page in the playbook and use some deception especially when the team is not winning the man on man battles.

For the Stamps on O this was a classic Dave Dickenson game with lots of short and medium quick passing plays, dinking and dunking their way down the field with possession football.

One thing as a fan about having our team so thoroughly outplayed, there is no agonizing the next day about "what if" or "if only". The turning point of the game was the opening whistle.
VictoriaFan
Starter
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:10 pm

my opinion on buns in the seats last night. It was smoking hot out, I know B.C. place can be stifling even with the roof open and I would suspect most peeps just stayed at home or went to a lake to cool off. I used to play in one of the hottest bands in Victoria, always a full house when we played, but even though the venue we played was air conditioned if it was any where near 30 degrees no one went down town period. At least all those empty seats didn't have to witness a stinker of a game.
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12590
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

Going into this week, the Lions had run a league-leading 88 times on first down (36% of all first-down plays). Getting good first-down production is the key to moving the football.

In the first half last night, the Lions ran 4 times in 13 plays for an 8-yard average and passed 9 times for 51 yards but all of those yards came on the first drive of the game. The Lions' last seven first-down pass plays of the half were all incomplete or produced no gain.

In the second half, things got even worse. The Lions totalled minus-6 yards on 10 first-down plays (5 runs for minus-2 yards and 5 pass plays for minus-4 yards). It's no wonder the Lions were shut out in the second half. Here's what the Lions did on first down in the second half:

-1 run
0 run
-8 sack
-3 run
1 run
0 incomplete pass
1 run
- 7 sack
5 pass
6 pass

The offensive line wasn't the only unit that came out flat last night but it was clearly eaten up by the Stampeders. The offence didn't have a chance to get rolling.
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

DanoT wrote:Great post Blitz as it covered most of what I was thinking.

That was one of the rare times when Wally admits that he got out coached

Levy Adcock was, no surprise, not in game shape. So why didn't the Lions rotate Hunter Steward to RT? or is Steward a LT only? OTOH with all the 2 and outs for the Lions and long drives by Stamps I guess Adcock was getting rest.
mos
How is Steward suppose to learn the LG position if he backs up a 36 year old who may not be here next year? Based on the play of the O line, I would expect Steward and perhaps Vaillancourt to start next game.

Broken record time: When are we going to see some screen passes and quick developing plays? The Stamps on D were playing like they recognized the play call, pre snap, and at times were running the routes for the Lions receivers. Time to turn to a new page in the playbook and use some deception especially when the team is not winning the man on man battles.

For the Stamps on O this was a classic Dave Dickenson game with lots of short and medium quick passing plays, dinking and dunking their way down the field with possession football.

One thing as a fan about having our team so thoroughly outplayed, there is no agonizing the next day about "what if" or "if only". The turning point of the game was the opening whistle.
We've almost always been a predictable offensive team because we've run the same spread offence for so long in the Buono era in B.C. The only two seasns in which our offence was not very predicable was in 2011 and 2012. Historically, defenses have been been able to shut down our offence in big games. You just have to look at our Grey Cup loss in 2004, our WDF loss in 2005, the fact that Montreal, with its 6th rated defence, was able to shut down our offence for most of the 2006 Grey Cup game and we lost the WDF in 2007, with our offence mostly shut down again. Fast forward from 2008-2015, outside of our 2011 Grey Cup season and you can see the pattern.

We've been fortunate to have the quality of quarterbacks we've had here in B.C. from Dickenson to Printers in 2004, to Lulay in 2011-2012, and Jennings right now, along with big play offensive players such as Simon, Clermont, Thelwell, Harris, Arsenault for many of those seasons.
But our offensive play book has never been very imaginative, outside of 2011 and 2012, when we used a lot of formations, misdirection, play action, and motion and a more diversified offence.

Our running game consists of the inside zone read run. That's it, with a quick toss thrown in every few games. Our passing game is mainly a deep intermediate or long passing attack. If a defense is able to get pressure on our quarterback, our offence has few strategies and relies on our quarterback making great passes under duress or being able to escape. We're a pocket passing spread offence team that doesn't fool anyone. Great quarterbacking is required to make it work.

Put Bo Levi Mitchell into our offence and he would have his struggles. Bo Levi can take a look for a deeper pattern and always has a second read underneath that gives him a high percentage play. We don't.

Defensively, we've played a lot of soft zone coverage and once again rely on either getting pressure on the quarterback or great play by our linebackers and secondary. We don't take away the opposition's strenths. For example, we know that McDaniel is Bo Levi's go to guy on second down. We could run a combination coverage on him with man/zone to take that away. Do we try to do that? No! We play the same way, no matter what or who.

You cant' always just out execute another team with the same stuff. That only works when you have superior talent. As you point out Dano T, a little deception or unpredictability can go a ong way. Throw in a fake play action bootleg for Jennings. Add a quick reverse for Rainey. Line up two tight ends and an extra back and throw off it on first down. Run a rub route on a linebacker and hit the back out of the backfield. Sprinkle in a misdirection screen for Lumbala. The play that got us a lot of yardage in 2011 was a fake handoff to Harris, a fake reverse, and a bootleg by Lulay, who threw it to Harris coming out of the backfield off the fake and getting open downfield.

To answer your question, Dano T. Steward has always played the left side. He is a natural left tackle but Wally did not have a National backup for him so he wanted to move him to guard, where if he gets hurt, we have depth at that position. But we certainly agree that Steward needs to play, if he is going to learn the left guard position and I didnt' see him play badly at all. Our offensive line looked its best with Steward and Vaillencourt at guard in our first two games.

No question Dano T, that Calgary was using a lot of pre-snap reads on defense and jumping some of our routes.

I also really wish that we would give Adekolu some rotations at the field wide out position. He is a big target, with excellent hands. Marco Iannuzzi has been our starter since 2011. He's started 88 games for us and has 90 receptions, an average of 1 catch per game. Quarterbacks talk with their throwing arm, no matter who the coach starts. For example, just watch the Grey Cup game of 2011, with Iannuzzi hurt and Paris Jackson playing in his place or whenever Paris Jackson came into a game in his final years here. As soon as he entered the game, Lulay threw to him. Iannuzzi had 3 catches last night, because our slotbacks were blanketed. But Iannuzzi is often ignored by Jennings, as he was by Lulay, even when he is open in the flat.

And I totally concur Dano T - the turning point of the game was the opening whistle.
"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)
maxlion
Legend
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:49 am

Blitz and others have already said it all, but one point I would underline from Blitz' analysis is the lack of high percentage passing plays in our offensive play calling.

Mitchell showed how hard it is to defend these plays when you have a QB who can throw with precision and receivers who can run the routes and make the catches. Its almost an automatic 6-8 yards every time. Ricky Ray has played this way for his whole career.

But we expect Jennings to make the 30 yard purrfect pass every series. It's wishful thinking and lazy playcalling in my opinion.
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

maxlion wrote:Blitz and others have already said it all, but one point I would underline from Blitz' analysis is the lack of high percentage passing plays in our offensive play calling.

Mitchell showed how hard it is to defend these plays when you have a QB who can throw with precision and receivers who can run the routes and make the catches. Its almost an automatic 6-8 yards every time. Ricky Ray has played this way for his whole career.

But we expect Jennings to make the 30 yard purrfect pass every series. It's wishful thinking and lazy playcalling in my opinion.
I realize I've already written more than enough but I especially like your last two sentences maxlion.

I like that Jennings wants to play aggressively and throw downfield. That's great when you have time and receivers are open. He has the arm and the confidence to play that way. But when he is getting little time to throw and his recievers are blanketed on those deep intermediate routes, he needs to have options to utilize in the passing attack. When a very good team like Calgary is able to take away the inside running game and get quick pressure on the quarterback, we need to be able to mix it up for him. Move the pocket, give him some high percentage quick throws.

Big games against the best teams expose your weaknesses and highlight where change is needed. Now if only our coaching staff can be wise.
"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

MikeAK wrote: I know there is a difference of opinion on the matter but I believe the lack of support/interest is a direct result of poor marketing, terrible pricing for tickets, and down right criminal robbery by concession prices. This isn't just a recent issue, it's been going on for over 5 years now. I know the concession is out of their hands, but the tickets and disconnect within the community is all on the Lions. They seem to have this idea about their product which the people clearly don't share. It wasn't that long ago when summer games had no problem drawing crowds. Fast forward to today and most people laugh when they see what it would cost to go to a game and have a dog and a flat beer. The organization is stunting it's own fan base growth. Mark my words, this team is going to have a real problem on their hands when us long time old school fans are gone. I don't see any new blood forging that bond with the team that we all did.
Been saying that for years.
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

I won't try to add anything to the analysis here but there is one thing that will have to admit

Up until last night, I had been trying to convince myself that the Lions were at or close to the level of the Stamps. They came out of the chute fast and looked to be gaining momentum. Then there were some disquieting events that began to stir some alarms in my head. First is was Toronto. The Lions were doing well in this game and then came out in the 2nd half like a bad impersonation of the Riders. They ended up losing the game. They did the same thing a couple of weeks later with the Stamps. A game for the taking was eventually pissed away although I will concede that they did suffer a number of critical injuries that night which made the task harder. Nevertheless the game was theirs except for their own mistakes. Then there was the Hamilton game just last week. Again, a fast start and what should have been a comfortable win. It was anything but. They seemed unable to counter on Defense for the Cats adjustments in the second half and had the Cats not had such a disastrous first half with a rusty Collaros that hadn't played at all for nearly a year, they probably wouldn't have won that game either.

Now the reasons for this are varied and complex but at the end of the day, what I have finally concluded is that although this team is much improved, it is not top tier. Simply put, good teams do not repeatedly squander leads. Part is on the D with examples being like last night. They couldn't pressure, tackle or defend the pass. Part of this is the O. Too many mistakes at key times and a sometimes over eager QB who takes risks when they aren't necessary coupled with spotty protection. On special teams, we leave too many points behind. The kicking game needs to get more consistent. Missing FG's with the frequency that we do is a problem that needs to get better.

There are many positives with this team over previous seasons but at the half way point now, we are no longer surprising teams like we did early. Teams have begun to adjust and the last two games have clearly demonstrated that we have much work to do. When you look at who we have lost too, Milanovich, Dickensen and very nearly Austin, do those names suggest a trend? Probably the best offensive minds in the league. They may have caught on first but others won't be far behind.
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)

Okay, that was depressing. Flat, listless, uninspired....pick your adjective for the Leos. Fast, smart, and fired up is how I'd describe the Stamps. It was as if in some parallel universe, Calgary had already played that game and were replaying it last night. They seemed one step ahead and knew exactly what we were going to do.

Here's what I'd say. A cliché as it sounds, we were dominated on both sides of the LOS. Wally and Dan erred. Adcock (who was playing the equivalent of his first preseason game in the biggest game of the year) should have been eased into the line-up in the upcoming Ottawa game, or Toronto. While we opened some nice holes for Jeremiah Johnson, pass protection was again an issue. The O-line was consistently beaten by 3 and 4 man rushes.

And on the other side of the ball, I know BLM has a quick release but I don't believe he was even touched last night, let alone sacked. His longest completion of the night was the 34 yard 'up for grabs' completion that frankly, Ryan Phillips should have batted down at worse. Now we've lost Clarke at short side halfback. Uggh! Could this night have gone any worse?

Bright spots: Messam was largely held in check (4.3 yard per carry....a lot of it coming in garbage time), Solly's 11 tackles, and Jeremiah Johnson's 5.9 yard rushing average on 9 carries.


DH :cool:
Roar, You Lions, Roar
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25103
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

Agree with David that the insertion of Levy Adcock into this game was a mistake. He's missed the entire preseason and almost half of the regular season.
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

Sir Purrcival wrote:I won't try to add anything to the analysis here but there is one thing that will have to admit

Up until last night, I had been trying to convince myself that the Lions were at or close to the level of the Stamps. They came out of the chute fast and looked to be gaining momentum. Then there were some disquieting events that began to stir some alarms in my head. First is was Toronto. The Lions were doing well in this game and then came out in the 2nd half like a bad impersonation of the Riders. They ended up losing the game. They did the same thing a couple of weeks later with the Stamps. A game for the taking was eventually pissed away although I will concede that they did suffer a number of critical injuries that night which made the task harder. Nevertheless the game was theirs except for their own mistakes. Then there was the Hamilton game just last week. Again, a fast start and what should have been a comfortable win. It was anything but. They seemed unable to counter on Defense for the Cats adjustments in the second half and had the Cats not had such a disastrous first half with a rusty Collaros that hadn't played at all for nearly a year, they probably wouldn't have won that game either.

Now the reasons for this are varied and complex but at the end of the day, what I have finally concluded is that although this team is much improved, it is not top tier. Simply put, good teams do not repeatedly squander leads. Part is on the D with examples being like last night. They couldn't pressure, tackle or defend the pass. Part of this is the O. Too many mistakes at key times and a sometimes over eager QB who takes risks when they aren't necessary coupled with spotty protection. On special teams, we leave too many points behind. The kicking game needs to get more consistent. Missing FG's with the frequency that we do is a problem that needs to get better.

There are many positives with this team over previous seasons but at the half way point now, we are no longer surprising teams like we did early. Teams have begun to adjust and the last two games have clearly demonstrated that we have much work to do. When you look at who we have lost too, Milanovich, Dickensen and very nearly Austin, do those names suggest a trend? Probably the best offensive minds in the league. They may have caught on first but others won't be far behind.
This team will not be able to beat the best teams until we make adaptions to our spread offence. Look at the playoff results in 2004, 2005, and 2007. Even when we won the Grey Cup in 2006, Dickenson had to run like hell for the victory. The results of 2008-2010 speak for themselves. We adapted our offence for the 2011 and 2012 seaons but we have been back in the same old spread since 2013 and we have struggled to win a playoff game. Our offence is way too predictable. Same old inside zone read run play with zone blocking. Same pocket passing predictable passing attack.

Yes, other teams use versions of the spread offence but they have adapted it to today's defences, with nickel backs, dime backs, zone blitzes, etc. We're still running the 1990's version from Buono's Calgary days.

Defensively, good offences and good quarterbacks will pick apart cloud zone coverage as Collarus did in the second half when we played Hamilton and Bo Levi Mitchell did in the second half of the previous game as well as all night last night.

Take Jennnings out of our offence for any length of time and our offence will struggle. It struggled last night against a good sound defensive strategy as it always has in most big games.

On defense this year, Mark Washington has been blessed with an excellent pass rushing end in Bazzie, one of the two best International tackles in the CFl in Brooks, a very good National tackle in Westerman, the best linebacking crew in the CFL, and a very good secondary with the additions of Edem, Stewart, and Purifoy. He has also had great depth. Most defenses can't replace a Lee with a Clarke or a Brooks with a Bryant Turner Jr.

Our defense is sliding and for good reasons. We're playing too soft in the flat. Our coverages are too simple. I don't blame our pass rush last night. Bo Levi Mitchell made a play action fake and the football was out of his hands on most plays in around two seconds, to an open receiver or running back in the flat . He mostly nickled and dimed us to death and the drives were long.

Bend and don't break works some of the time but against a good offence with an excellent quarterback like Bo Levi or Collarus... bend and bend and bend just results in the bends for our defensive players who end up being exhausted.
"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
Hambone
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8213
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:25 pm
Location: Living in PG when not at BC Place, Grey Cup or Mazatlan.

Pass rush, or lack thereof, to me was a big factor last night. There was some push but really no sustained pressure. When BC did send someone on a stunt or blitz the Stamps seemed to have it already smelled out and had the purrfect call to get rid of the ball quickly, usually into the area opened up by the LB or DB brought in on the rush. Calgary also feasted on the Rob Bagg route where a receiver would lolly gag over in the softly defended wide side sideline while BLM went through his progressions before finally opting for the wide open Plan D. Overall it seemed like one of those nights when if it wasn't a dropped pass it was an ill-timed penalty that extended a snuffed out Stamp drive.

I have seen this movie though many times before over the past 25 years. The Lions always seem to serve up their biggest turkeys in those games where they have a great opportunity to really draw the attention of the market place towards them. They really could've sent a message to the market at a time when the summertime rival Whitecaps are floundering badly and quickly fading out of any playoff contention.
You're as old as you've ever been and as young as you're ever going to be.
Post Reply