2016 season review and 2016/17 offseason

[Blitz]

Thanks for the chuckle, Blitz. One can cry. One can laugh. A bit of laughter helps ease the toothache and the overall pain.

* Xs and Os.

* Personnel.

* Execution.

It's a trinity, a troika, as are so many things. Best to give each its due.

West Coast Joe

Exactly WCJ. All three make up the key components for success.

There are a lot of aspects to the x and o's. This includes philosophy, scheme (and whether you adapt scheme to personell or just play and play into an existing scheme as we do), scouting, self-scouting, play book, game planning, and play calling.

Coaching also plays a role in the other two areas. Personell involves the coaches choice of personell, in terms of which players to have on the roster (game roster, practice roster, injury roster), which players to start, which players to rotate in. etc.

Coaching also plays an important part of 'execution' as well. Players don't develop techniques and skills on their own. They are instructed during the practice week and during games. Therefore how a team practices and what is practiced and how its practiced plays an important part of execution. Timing also plays a role in execution and that comes from coaches instruction and play design at practice.

Finally, execution also comes from areas such as poise, mental sharpness, attitude, hustle, work ethic, and team chemistry. Coaching leadership and coaching ability also plays a role in these areas too.

So, when you really look at it, coaching regarding the comprehensive and complex aspect of x and o's make up approximately 1/3 of the pie but also because coaching also has a strong impact on personnel decisions and even more powerful impact on 'execution', coaching is the predominant factor in team success.

Aided by Jaime Elizondo’s wonderful offensive game plan, Burris was both accurate and prudent. When he ad libbed, it was to outlet receivers who then exploited enormous problems in the Stamps’ defensive coverage. National Post

Ottawa finished 5th in CFL scoring this season. Our Leos finished 3rd in CFL scoring. Yet we couldn't put a point on the board against Calgary's defence in the first half of the WDF. We didn't score a single point in the second half of our last regular season game against them either.

Our defense gave up 32 first half points against Calgary (25 first half points against the Bombers. Our defense finished 3rd in least points allowed. The RedBlacks finished 6th in points allowed this season.

Yet, Ottawa rolled to a 20-7 lead over the alleged juggernaut from Calgary in the Grey Cup game and we were down 32-0 in the WDF. Lack of execution doesn't explain it.

Burris’ hit eight different receivers in the half, and every time it looked like Calgary might get a key stop, Burris seemed to find an open receiver. The Redblacks were 15-for-17 in second-down conversions in the opening 30 minutes, which will keep a lot of drives going.

Ottawa had receivers open throughout the game. Ours were well covered. Calgary played the same defense against Ottawa in the first half of the game as they did against our Leos. We couldn't covert on second and short or second and long. Ottawa converted on second and second and long all game in the Grey Cup. Ottawa's plays and play calls were the key difference maker.

Ottawa also came into the Grey Cup game, not only well prepared with an excellent game plan and benefited from excellent play calling but they also had 'energy'. Our Leos came out flat in the WDF, as they did against Winnipeg. Preparing a team psychologically is also an aspect of coaching.

So while I was being facetious, about 'energy drinks', 'pre-game meal', 'pre-game sex', 'growing a beard' and 'memory enhancement' workshops, there has to be a reason why Ottawa's players were able to 'execute' at such a high level against Calgary in comparison to our Leos.

So, our Leos lack of 'energy' as well as our 'lack of execution' and our 'inability to convert on second down was blamed by Wally on our players, the reality is that our Leos were not prepared psychologically to win nor was our game plan, game day scheme, or play calling even adequate to take on the Stamps. That comes down to coaching more than any other factor.

Coaching is more than 'our players gotta make plays', 'gotta block harder', 'gotta hit harder', 'gotta tackle better', and 'EXECUTE'.

So Wally can blame the players for all of it and the media and some fans can drink the Kool Aid but logic says something different.

You can't win unless you have enough talent but when you have enough talent to win, quarterbacking is crucial to success and coaching is most often the predominant factor in winning and losing.

[Lionsfan65]

Coaching is more than 'our players gotta make plays', 'gotta block harder', 'gotta hit harder', 'gotta tackle better', and 'EXECUTE'.

So Wally can blame the players for all of it and the media and some fans can drink the Kool Aid but logic says something different.

While said Blitz, from my experiences playing, the job of any coach first and foremost is to put his team in a position to win. It is the responsibility of the coach to get his players ready to play, in the right frame of mind, and during the game calling plays that work to his team's and player's advantage and to the other team's weakness. Coaching in football is not a one size fits all type of thing, each individual player has different strengths and abilities, and that in itself is the beauty of football. A coach should adapt their schemes to fit the personnel that they have. That being said, the only thing a coach can't do is play the game for the players, Execution is on the players. While the coaches can call whatever plays they wish, it is on the players whether or not that play will be successful.

[Blitz]

Coaching is more than 'our players gotta make plays', 'gotta block harder', 'gotta hit harder', 'gotta tackle better', and 'EXECUTE'.

So Wally can blame the players for all of it and the media and some fans can drink the Kool Aid but logic says something different.

While said Blitz, from my experiences playing, the job of any coach first and foremost is to put his team in a position to win. It is the responsibility of the coach to get his players ready to play, in the right frame of mind, and during the game calling plays that work to his team's and player's advantage and to the other team's weakness. Coaching in football is not a one size fits all type of thing, each individual player has different strengths and abilities, and that in itself is the beauty of football. A coach should adapt their schemes to fit the personnel that they have. That being said, the only thing a coach can't do is play the game for the players, Execution is on the players. While the coaches can call whatever plays they wish, it is on the players whether or not that play will be successful.

I totally agree Lionsfan65 that the job of a coach is to put his team in a position to win, getting his players ready to play in the right frame of mind, play calling for teams strengths and opposition weakness and adapting schemes to personjel.

I agree that execution is on the players but the success of a play is not always just determined by execution. A team can execute a play to the best of their ability and at a high level and still have it not be successful.

For example, calling the zone read play on second and short, in the five receiver, ace back spread formation, can be executed to the best pf our our Leo players ability and be stopped for a loss. The five offensive linemen zone block the play, with each moving in unison to one side, as they have been coached to do.. However, if the defense uses a four man line, a middle linebacker, and then knifes in a second linebacker we don't have enough blockers. That's why the play has been stopped on second and two numerous times this season.

There were times when Johnson made a jump cut and went backside to the play, making that second linebacker miss but if he got penetration, Johnson didn't have space to juke him. Then the play went for a loss, which happened numerous times. In the Calgary game, Johnson was stopped twice for losses on that play. Had we used the zone read option and faked to Johnson, Jennings could have run the play just outside the defensive ends, as opposition defensive ends usually crashed down on our inside zone read play, knowing the play was coming on second down and short.

So, sometimes play calls, with excellent execution (our offensive linemen all made their blocks, based on alignment) and yet still the play was shut down. Wally says its a lack of execution when its not. Its a bad play call based upon our predictability, the oppostions' predictability, based upon how they usually defend the play against us. Therefore, the fault of the play is actually the play call rather than the execution of the play.

[B.C.FAN]

Matt Baker has posted a good Q&A with Mark Washington at bclions.com, breaking down the B.C. defence in 2016. There's lots of discussion about coaching philosophy, scheme, players and position groups. Some excerpts, in Washington's words, followed by some comments from me.

On Bo Lokombo:

MW: Bo is a good football player and he’s still learning the game. He reminds me of a kid in puberty (laughs), you’re just getting used to his voice, he sort of clumsy sometimes, but he’s still learning and getting better. You can see the talent coming out of that kid and he’s still learning the game and going through his growth and maturation. He’s putting it all together.

This is insigfhtful for those of us who wondered what the coaching staff saw or didn't see in Lokombo. They see him as a talented player who is still learning the game. Will they give him a bigger role so he can learn on the field? That's a big question going into next year.

On Loucheiz Purifoy:

MW: Even in OTA in April I saw that this guy was a talented player. I knew who he was at the University of Florida. I remembered him. I saw a guy that can be an impact player because of his athleticism; he’s a very sudden player. Everything he does, he does suddenly and he can catch the offence off guard. He’s very physical, has a good football IQ where he can figure things out on the field and he plays with tenacity. He’s got a little nasty in him. These are things you want in a good football player.

I don't know if he'll be back. He showed talent but at the end of the season he was one of many guys in the secondary who couldn't get to the ball in time to make a play.

On Ryan Phillips:

MW: Ryan is such an asset both on and off the field. He’s tremendous and he has the respect of everyone in the league. He’s like having a coach out there on the field and he can see things from two points of view: the point of view from the player who is actually playing and also a bird’s eye view because he has seen it before. He has understood the schemes and the way offences have tried to attack over the years. There is not much he hasn’t seen. To their credit, the young players that we have listen to him. We don’t have too many hotheads that don’t listen. If we do have those guys then we make sure that they listen.

Agreed. He's also not the player that he was in his prime. He is a bigger asset off the field than on it. On the field can read the play and know what's coming but he can no longer get there. His one interception in 2016 is an indication of where he is physically.

On the defensive line:

MW: We asked those guys to have different roles this year. It’s amazing how people look at production and they say things like “production was down.” Yet, we tied for the league lead in sacks again. We were at the top of a lot of different categories and our defensive line was the key to that. We asked those guys, in some of the schematic things that we did, to take some for the team and they did. What every defensive lineman wants to do is just rush the passer unabated and when we asked them to do that they were able to put pressure on the quarterback the way we needed them to. I give those guys a lot of credit. They hung in there, they played hard, and they played together. When it was time to set them free they went and did their jobs.

Yes, the Lions run a linebacker-centred defence that calls for the D-line to play supporting roles while freeing up the linebackers to make plays. They not only had to hold gaps and contain the QB, but as part of a defensive trend throughout the league, Alex Bazzie was often dropped into pass coverage, as were the likes of pash-rush specialists John Chick in Hamilton and Odell Willes in Edmonton. The Lions don't unleash their D-line to go after the QB on every play.

On the lack of turnovers created by the defence:

MW: It was a discussion throughout the season. Guys just need to be in a better position, they’ve got to anticipate things and see when the ball is coming. You need to have that “go get it” attitude. We didn’t have enough of that. We increased our forced fumbles from the year before and we got a lot of balls on the ground. We’ve just got to recover them. I was very disappointed in the lack of turnovers this year.

I agree. It could be due to scheme, lack of aggressiveness, lack of instinct, lack of speed or lack of talent but as MW said: "Guys just need to be in a better position, they’ve got to anticipate things and see when the ball is coming." Losing Yell and Lee, the heart of the secondary, really hurt. Gaitor showed at the end of the season that he can be an impact player. I don't think any of the other holdovers can be impact players except Keynan Parker, who showed more anticipation and aggressiveness in a relief role on the corner than some veterans showed all year. Turnovers have a huge impact on a game. Win the turnover battle and you win the game 85% of the time. People have questioned Jonathon Jennings' decision-making for some of the interceptions he threw this year but the league-low 9 interceptions by the defence was probably a bigger factor in the Lions' minus-6 turnover margin. Winnipeg had 30 interceptions.

Q&A: MARK WASHINGTON BREAKS DOWN DEFENCE IN ’16