There are always key plays in a close game that could have changed the outcome of the game. For the Argos, it was the Foley touchdown that was called back for a penalty and their punt return penalty. They would have had the football on our 30 yard line, with five minutes remaining on the clock and instead they began on their own 46 yard line, after the penalty was marched off. The Argos also dropped an easy interception in their own end zone and that cost them a field goal.As for last nights game, there were at least two opportunities where two TD's likely would have resulted. The Iainuzzi play and the drop by Arceneaux which I think was about the 4 yard line. Proper execution on those two plays and I think the game would have been perceived very differently. They seemed to be a little off last night. The passes weren't always on target or crisp, the tackling wasn't necessarily the greatest at a couple of points and the Oline seemed to be pretty awful as well but in the end, Toronto seemed to struggle as much as we did. Shore up the Oline, keep the running game and the balance on passing, add some quicker developing plays and I think we will continue to have success. Lot of room for improvement but even working about %75 of efficiency and we are capable of beating any team in the league right now. Hopefully Wally and co will figure out a way to shore up the OLine somehow. That appears to be the biggest problem we currently have. Sir Percival
For our Leos, there was the drop by Arseneaux in the first quarter and the missed throw to Iannuzzi from Arseneaux on a well-designed gadget play. No one expected Arseneaux to throw the football.
Outside of the final drive of the game, there were a number of key plays, most of them defensive ones. One play that has gone under the radar was the punt return by Rainey just prior to our final drive. Rainey fielded the Toronto punt on our eight yard line and returned the football 18 yards to our 26 yard line. Instead of operating under the shadow of our own end zone, our offence had a little more room to begin its final drive of the game.
My point came from a different perspective Sir Percival I was comparing Jennings running our offence in comparison to having a vet like Lulay behind center. I think the results would not be as good with Lulay and possibly even dismal.In defense of the Lions O, you can probably make this statement about most teams when you take away their starting QB. Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa (kind of in reverse) all struggled without their best QB at the helm. Winnipeg was doing horrible with Willy at the controls but I doubt their playbook changed significantly with Nichols.
This isn't to dispute what you say about limited schemes, old schemes and strategies. These are the same issues that have sort of been with the Lions since 2011. What it does show however is that sometimes, it isn't the strategy, it is the players executing it. If you don't have enough players on a team doing enough things right, you aren't going to be very successful
Wally always focuses responsibility on execution. Therefore, the matter of winning becomes 'a matter of execution'. The onus is on the player In this thought process. This notion says that if you execute at a high level you should win. Yes, quarterbacks need to make accurate throws when they have the time to get rid of the football, receivers have to run the correct pattern well and catch the football, and offensive lineman need to choose the correct defender to block and execute the block.
Of course, opposing coaches focus on execution too.
But you can execute a play perfectly and not be successful. For example, on an inside read running play, a safety blitz or a nickel back run blitz can blow up the play and nail the tailback at the line of scrimmage. Or a defense may run a perfectly executed blitz but a screen pass has been called to the blitz side and the offence gets a big gain.
An offence can pass block perfectly on a pass play, the receivers can run execute their routes perfectly but if the defense sends six rushers against five offensive lineman, and there is no quick pattern for the quarterback to to throw to no safety valve on the play, purrfect execution means nothing.
What has separated the NFL's greatest coaches, such as Paul Brown, George Hallas, Vince Lombardi, Bill Walsh, and Bill Belechick and others has been or is attention to systems and x and o's. Most pro coaches can get their talent to execute their talent close to the players maximum level.
Why has Bill Belechick been able to reach 10 AFC Championship games in a salary cap era with the draft each season designed to create parity? Because he has constantly changed offensive strategy and out prepared other teams in terms of strategy, game planning, and play calling. Belechick could not been close to being as successful as he has been for so long, based on talent and execution.
Lombardi was using zone blocking schemes decades before they became the recent vogue in the NFL. His success involved much more than just executing the celebrated and well executed Green Bay power sweep. Bill Walsh not only brought the West Coast offence into the NFL but he, like Lombardi, was considered a master strategist and a football genius because he concocted novel offenses.
When one looks at the CFL, Don Matthews success was grounded on innovative defense. He gave the CFL the plethora of zone blitzes, the 'tweener' linebacker that evolved into the nickelback, the sixth defensive back, etc. Wally made his chops in Calgary based on Hufnagel's spread offence that was ahead of his time in the CFL. Dave Ritchie introduced multi-formational defence, 'personnel packages', the two, three, four, and five man defensive line, and complex combination man/zone pass coverages.
What really separates Calgary right now from the rest of the pack. Is Bo Levi Mitchell that much better a quarterback than other CFL quarterbacks? Not to me he isn't. Is Calgary's talent that much better than our Leos? I believe we have as much talent as Calgary and maybe even more talent. We beat Calgary at home, lost to them in overtime in a game in which we looked like the much better team, and then were dominated offensively and defensively the last time we played them. Was it a matter of Calgary out executing us. I beg to differ. Wally recognized it too when he said "We were out coached" in that game. We were and badly.
Ricky Ray completed over 82% of his passes against us last night. He executed the Toronto game plan very well. But it still was not enough to win the game because Washington's defensive strategy reigned supreme. Washington was awarded the game ball from his defense due to his work.
Over the course of a season superior talent usually wins. But when two teams are close to each other in talent line up over the course of a season, the team that uses superior strategy usually comes out on top. One may out execute the other in a single matchup. Execution mistakes, turnovers, missed assignment, big plays effect the outcome. But systems, pre-game scouting, strategy, scheme, game planning, sequence of play calling, play calling have much more of an impact than most realize.
Football is the most strategic of all sports. A big part of this is the unique feature that each game is 100-150 or so unique trials—the plays. This gives rise to the art and science of play-calling. Its most often the big difference maker.
The difference maker in winning the Toronto game was the difference in strategy on that final drive. On our two previous drives we had been forced to punt. The difference was not that we executed that final drive better than on our previous drives but that we utilized quicker and shorter on four of our five completed passes on that final drive.