How are our great free agents signings of Dequin Evans, Buddy Jackson, Tony Burnett, Swayze Waters, Dylan Ainsworth, etc looking now?
How is the big off-season signing of Leo free Michael Brooks to a big two year contract looking now?
At the time, Buono had this to say:
Well, Facault is not leading us to the promised land but instead almost getting our quarterback killed, we've badly missed Olifioye, Brooks is nowhere near being a dominant defensive lineman, Awe is better than Burnett, the very expensive Waters is not even here, we're still waiting on Chris Williams, Dylan Ainsworth will not play football anymore, and“Mic’hael has the ability to be one of the most dominant interior defensive linemen in the league and this is a significant signing for our defence,” said GM and head coach Wally Buono. “The ability to control the line of scrimmage, pressure the quarterback and stop the run are the qualities upon which championship defences are built and by re-signing Mic’hael this is a big step in that direction.”
Dequin Evans is not nor will he ever be a dominant pass rush defensive end. Heck, these days we're often dropping him off to pass cover underneath. That's not the purpose or role you go out and sign a free agent defensive end for, but then again, Evans is not an imposing rush end nor has he ever been in the CFL.
We didn't need to go out and sign these free agents for 2017. It was also obvious last season that Brooks was not the answer as a penetrating, pass rushing defensive tackle.
This was a very talented Leo team in 2016 and going into 2017. There was no need to go and sign some of these free agents and lose an All-Star tackle.
All we needed to do was find a defensive end who could rush the passer, a defensive tackle who could penetrate, and a kicker who could replace Leone - a situation we should not have been in if Buono had not, once again, attempting to convert a punter into a field goal kicker and stick with it no matter what for almost two seasons, when the obvious was right in front of his eyes.
So we ended up getting into an expensive bidding war with Hamilton to sign Waters and that drives the Olifioye trade.
We had a linebacker who could have replaced Bighill in Bo Lokombo, who we mostly pined for 3 seasons except for special teams instead of giving him some significant reps. Washington and Buono even had Aragki starting over Lokombo in 3-4 formations. Lokombo knew that sticking with our Leos was no guarantee of moving into Bighill's spot. In fact Lokombo would have known that Buono would most likely go with an International in Bighill's spot.
There was also no good reason why Awe didn't get another start. Burnett has not lit the world on fire and Awe played exceptionally well last week for his first start as a rookie. It has to be deflating for Awe.
Heck, our Leos organization is so dum at times, that once again, we threw away a high draft pick away by trying to stick him on the practice roster. Did we really need to protect Jas Dhillon on the 46 man roster?
So, while our offensive line could not protect Lulay against mostly a four man rush and our defensive line could not get consistent pressure on Mike Reilly, the major problem with our Leos team is not personnel - its coaching and game planning.
We knew, going into this game, that the strength of the Eskimos defense was their four man pass rush. We knew that Benevedes likes to play all his defenders in zone behind that pass rush, including the linebackers.
So why the hell were we using so many crossing patterns? Why did we not attempt to move the pocket for Lulay? Why did we not attempt a different style of passing attack against that type of pass rush, with more quick tailback screens, quick draw plays, etc.
We just rolled out 'same old' and we couldn't run against Eskimos and we hardly did anything to strategy wise to negate their pass rush or exploit their zone defence. Lulay was our leading rusher in this game and he had to be. So much for Wally's revamped offensive line.
Lulay was under incredible heat all game - Edmonton's pass rush was ferocious. Steward was benched last season for one missed run block and yet Facault has been so badly beaten at times in the last two games that his defender has had a clear run to the quarterback. Different rules for different folks.
Why did we not have a better game plan against that defensive lne and that style of defence?
On defense, why do we have so many missed assignments that lead to big plays? Why do defenders not know who to cover? Why is our defensive secondary set up so that if one player gets hurt we have to change three and four assignments? Why does our defense struggle against good teams in the West?
Why did the Bombers offence put up so many points against our defence in the first half of last year's Semi-Final and why did Calgary shred our defense in last years West Final? Why did the Bombers offence score so many points against our defence last week and the Eskimos do the same this week?
?Because it seems that we don't have a clue, strategy wise, when it comes to playing good teams. Last week, when it was brought up that Khari Jones had yelled at him during last week's game Buono commented "Everybody yells at me". Why is the so called CFL's best coach of all time such a lousy game manager that his personnel need to yell at him? Why is our team so usually unprepared, in one way or the other, against good teams
Its because we are stuck in our ways of thinking. Leadership of a football team is not just saying 'you gotta block better, 'you gotta tackle better', 'you gotta get more turnovers', you 'gotta execute better'. Buono doesn't wear a headset because he is not a leader when it comes to strategy. He's ' a so called 'general' but all truly great generals have been outstanding strategists.
An analogy I could provide is that D Day involved great planning and great strategy and the element of surprise. If Buono had been leading D Day, there would have been no surprise. He would have told the Germans what he was going to do first, just said 'we gotta focus on ourselves", no matter where the Germans are on the beach and "we just gotta execute" so get out there and 'fight harder' and execute the ill devised and unsurprising plan and then been pissed when it would not have worked and blamed the troops for not overcoming a bad plan and poor strategy, without the element of surprise in the first place.
We are consistently out game planned and outsmarted. When we win, its usually because we have the talent to overcome the limitations of our schemes, coaching, and in some areas, our personnel decisions. When we lose, its usually because we are facing a team that is closer to us in talent and their coaching staff outcoaches us. When we do pull off a victory against the better teams, it usually takes a high number of phenomenal plays by our players to do so, whether its a Jennings escaping the pocket to beat the Bombers last year or a Burnham out jumping two defenders to make a great catch or a Sol E. making a play that he should not have even been in the position to make.
Last week was another prime example of this week's coaching ineptitude. We didn't cover Andrew Harris out of the backfield, even though we knew he was the Bombers prime target. He had 12 catches against us and could have had 25 receptions in that game. Their special teams exploited us, even though we knew before hand that they focus on that area and take chances.
This week, we decide to rush Reilly with three and four defenders who we know can't get consistent pressure on a quarterback and somehow Buono and Washington think we can cover their receivers while giving Reilly a lot of time. Edmonton was averaging less than 20 points a game. They were up on us fast and early, like most good teams usually are, because they are better prepared and we are unprepared.
Reilly threw for almost 300 yards in the first half alone.
Why do are opposition receivers so wide open deep. Why does our corner think the halfback is covering the deep ball behind him and instead the halfback covers a post pattern and the deep receiver is wide open? Happens time and again.
The Eskimos didn't need a game-winning drive in the dying seconds against our Leos. They won handily and they did while not only overcoming a rash of injuries since their training camp but also dealing with more injuries in this game. Edmonton running back Travon Van and kicker Sean Whyte were injured, forcing the Edmonton offence to play with all three downs in the fourth quarter.
I love the talent overall on this Leos team. Our only real weak areas are some areas of the offensive and defensive line. We have some very good talent on our offensive line. Steward is a beast, Husband is a very good center, and Fabian is a decent guard. Vaillencourt was a highly regarded draft choice and the most pro ready coming out of college. We've mostly stuggled at left guard and especially right tackle and we didn't need to be struggling there this season at all, had we made the right decisions before this season started.“It’s been ever occurring through the course of the year so far and started early in training camp and that was the worst game I’ve ever seen that many guys go down in key positions,” Eskimos head coach Jason Maas said of players playing out of position. “Your kicker-punter going down, your long-snapper going down at the end of the game, your backup kicker going down. There were so many, I just know at the end of it, I look up at the scoreboard and it’s 37-26 and that’s all that really matters.
Defensively, we went into this season thinking that Dequin Evans and Michael Brooks could get it done as our dominant defensive end and defensive tackle and it should have been obvious that would not be the case.
We took our best linebacker at training camp in Awe and lined him up behind Sol E. for most of it. We took Purifoy, an outstanding nickel and converted him to safety, without hardly any practice there, inserted Fenner at nickel, just before our season opener and yet, whenever a halfback is injured, we have to move Fenner back to halfback and Purifoy back to nickel back and insert a different player to play safety. Those kind of wholesale changes in a game are not wise.
I love a lot of the players on this Leos team. We have some great players...many of them. I often feel sorry for them because they so often have to play above their heads to get a result that should happen without needing to do so and they get blamed when they lose, when most often its not their fault.
For example, in this game, Lulay threw some interceptions, as he did in his two previous outings. I will not blame him as I did not blame Jennings last season when he did. Lulay was not 'trying to do too much because we were behind'. He was trying to 'make plays' because if our players don't 'make exceptional plays' we lose. And he was trying to make plays under very adverse conditions like a pass rush in his face all game.
Lulay was 22/26 under those condtions. He played very well with the game plan he was given, the pass rush he encountered, and the plays that he was asked to 'execute'.
Our players are not aided by our schemes or game planning. They are handicapped by them.
We're stuck in rigid thinking. It works when we play less talented teams whose strategy cannot overcome our superior talent. Our rigid thinking doesn't work when more talented teams outstrategize us, unless we get exceptional performances from a lot of players.Its 'roll out the barrell' with our coaching staff. We 'roll out' the same stuff game after game, while the opposition outgame plans us and outstrategizes us and then our players are blamed for not 'executing'. Lulay executed with the hand he was dealt and the game plan he was given and the protection or lack thereof he experienced, and the play calls that were sent in from the bench. Based on those circumstances, he executed very well.
I laughed to myself recently, when Buono talked about Lulay 'being a man' by accepting the backup role and being supportive of Jennings and mentoring him and leaving his ego aside. And yet, when Buono was in a role to do that, when he stepped away from coaching to supposedly be our GM only he did not 'man up' at all. Instead he was an over-controlling, interfering GM, observing from the cherry picker at practices and generally undermining the Head Coaches he had chosen, while publically commenting that it was difficult to replace a legend (himself). He should have taken lessons from Lulay regarding what it truly takes to 'be a man'.
Tough loss. I'm obviously frustrated and disappointed, even though I shouldn't be. Its same old, same old' and continuing to hope for or expect a different result means I should know better.
They say hope is eternal but our coaching staff makes that a very challenging concept.