Lions 36 - Bombers 27, Post-Game Stats and Comments

[WestCoastJoe]

"When we had one on one coverage downfield we hit them."

Since Jennings took over back in 2015 he's never been shy about airing it out when he recognizes one on one coverage. The big difference yesterday was that he hit them. We really haven't seen that sort of accuracy on the deep ball out of Jennings this year. I can think of at least a few earlier in the season where receivers were behind coverage and Jennings missed the target. I can think of 2 sure TDs to Williams on deep routes behind coverage that wound up incomplete on overthrows. Maybe his shoulder wasn't 100% early on and is finally back to where it needs to be?

That could be part of it. Time in the pocket is key, as always.

Without good check downs, oftentimes our deep receivers this year were double covered. With no time in the pocket, no check downs readily available, Jennings chucked it up deep anyway. It needed better planning.

Having check downs. When check downs work, the defence has to come up. Coming forward opens up the deeper stuff.

Time after time this year, I would see Jennings in the pocket, with the pocket collapsing, with the receivers well covered, not getting separation, and with no receiver looking back to Jennings, or coming back to the ball. That is a formula for failure.

Plus we have not featured rollouts. The QB could be found right in the heart of the pocket.

As with a few bloggers here, this fan does not fault Jennings for the failures of our passing game. As noted a few times, IMO, Bo Levi Mitchell would look like a failure, having to play under the circumstance facing Jennings this year.

Injured shoulder? That could have affected his confidence. Plus, as Blitz points out, there may be a tendency for our QBs to eventually suffer from repeated hits, hurries and sacks.

Some tend to criticize Jennings. Not this fan. Fans are entitled to criticize players or coaches as they will. I do not wish to debate. People can have different opinions. And they will have different opinions.

IMO, in this game, we did a much better job of game planning. Jennings still took 4 sacks and a number of hits and hurries. But we had enough quick hitters to keep the defence somewhat off balance.

As Blitz notes, our receivers do not always do their best getting separation. Routes not run cleanly. Guys not working back to the QB when Jennings is in trouble, as he oftentimes is with receivers well covered.

As a fan, I used to get annoyed with Dickenson when he would take a sack instead of throwing it away. I thought he was protecting his stats. JJ will throw it away. Sometimes better to just take the sack. No tipped ball, etc.

It usually comes down to people looking at the QB. In good times and bad.

IMO Jennings has a very special ability to throw very, very accurate passes, if he is given time in the pocket.

IMO it is not just one thing that needed correction. It was not just that Jennings was messing up, having a "sophomore jinx," or not living up to his results of last year. O Line. Receivers. Game planning. Et cetera ...

And looking at last year, defences this year had a better book on Jennings. Since the defences adjusted, we needed to adjust.

Lulay is a different matter. IMO he was so much better in his short time this year than even in previous years, including his MOP year. Better arm. Better reads. More confidence. And he has always had his extreme mobility and running ability to put defences back on their heels. Defences had not yet figured out this year how to slow him down. But they would. And we would have to adjust once again.

Just IMO. Not a critic of Jennings. Biased in his favour? One could say that. I think he brings one helluva lot to the table. As we saw this game. If I thought he was doing poorly I wouldn't speak on his behalf to such an extent. And then there is the patience factor, if one sees an upside.

If we do not bring enough to help the QB, whether that is Dickenson, Printers, Pierce, Lulay or Jennings, my bias is in support of the QB. We have seen the pounding they take in our offence.

Just IMO, Hambone.

[Figaro]

I must admit that as game time approached a sense of impending doom sat down on the sofa with me. As others on the list, I did not hold out much hope for a Lion victory being out of the playoffs and as one Lionbacker said earlier, fielding a preseason roster. That, with Winnipeg having a home playoff game to play for made my season-long unwanted guest, "Impending Doom," a bit too comfortable.

And then something happened: no, it wasn't the march downfield on first possession - it was the gamble on third and long early in the game that kicked that unwanted guest right off the couch and out the door. I thought of last weeks game against Edmonton and our decision to put the ball on third down with ten seconds to go on the clock. Where was that wishy-washy play it safe game plan that cost us not only that game but many others as well this season? With the sense of impending doom removed, I saw clearly a team set on winning.

All year I have harped on playing Rainey, the most exciting offensive talent in the CFL full time on offense. Why hide him on a special teams that could only block a colon rather than early gunners from the outside. I had suggested Williams be put back there - but the decision to try Davis showed me that they don't want to hurt a player who they want to dump ASAP. Besides Davis has moves.

I need to place a short interjection at this time - what a relief to have Matt Dunnigan doing analysis instead of Glen Suitor. Finally, someone who actually sees the game and is not afraid to make comments about the referees' gaffs. For example, he not only commented on the mystery of why the Lions didn't play Rainey on offense all the time, he even questioned why they would run him up the middle and not swing a pass out wide to him so that he is one on one with a linebacker and let him do his stuff. Dunnigan also questioned some of the rough play penalties assessed to the Lions. For example, he said that the hit on Loffler by Moore was a football play and not roughing - he also said that Loffler who likes to dish it out can take it as well. I like Dunnigan's calls.

Can't figure out how the blocked kick player wasn't ruled down - it was obvious. Jennings seemed to have more pop in his throws. Is he finally healthy? Vaillancourt was stalwart on the defensive line. I hope that next year we can get a full healthy season from him - I predict that if that were the case he would collect some hardware. The receivers played well, especially Burnham who instinctively knows when his quarterback is in trouble and turns to come back hard to the ball to help him out. Best receiver we have. Glad to see Nick Moore play, he gives us something Williams can't: height and size. He comes down with the ball. It looks like Manny has lost a step with the knee problem and age but is still a fierce player - I see him growing into a NIck Lewis type of slot.

On defense, clearly, our number one strength just got stronger with the addition of Dyshawn Davis at linebacker. Dunnigan mentioned the quartet of Solly, Fenner, Awe and now Davis. The backfield I believe is stronger with the addition of Kendall James - he played a great first game. Now the defensive line? This is where the Lions must focus on the off-season on this side of the ball. Luke, Forde and Menard are keepers as National players and when given the chance play well. The International lineman have to be better - actually, they have to be bigger and stronger and better.

And when it comes to coaching, I am hoping for a wholesale change. None of them have impressed and that starts with the head coach - you know, the one who wanders the sideline wondering what is going on and seems bemused by the whole thing? The game has passed Wally; Dorazio will get our quarterbacks killed; Washington and Jones have proven that they have attempted 'a bridge too far" ; Simmons, even though his squad couldn't block, I could be persuaded to keep him around for another try - remember his first year as ST coach was rather good. I heard that Wally often interferred with ST in practice - if this is true, then I would keep Simmons if Wally is gone.

All in all, I really enjoyed this game - I really enjoyed the way the team played - gambles, play calling and "execution." I believe some PS players have their first foot in the door especially DeShawn Davis and Kendall Jones. Let's hope they play with the same demeanor and tempo next week in front of their last home crowd of the season. I have invited a new friend to come and watch the game with me - "Hopeful Optimism."

[WestCoastJoe]

And then something happened: no, it wasn't the march downfield on first possession - it was the gamble on third and long early in the game that kicked that unwanted guest right off the couch and out the door. I thought of last weeks game against Edmonton and our decision to put the ball on third down with ten seconds to go on the clock. Where was that wishy-washy play it safe game plan that cost us not only that game but many others as well this season? With the sense of impending doom removed, I saw clearly a team set on winning.

Excellent point, Figaro. We went for it. More than once. And excellent points throughout your post.

That example you gave was the ultimate head shaker. Punt on 3rd down with 10 seconds left, near scoring range, and a chance to win. That just kills your team. And that just typifies our overly conservative philosophy on offence, defence and STs. Prevent. Play it safe. Take no chances. And that infects a team. Fear dominates.

[Blitz]

And then something happened: no, it wasn't the march downfield on first possession - it was the gamble on third and long early in the game that kicked that unwanted guest right off the couch and out the door. I thought of last weeks game against Edmonton and our decision to put the ball on third down with ten seconds to go on the clock. Where was that wishy-washy play it safe game plan that cost us not only that game but many others as well this season? With the sense of impending doom removed, I saw clearly a team set on winning.

Excellent point, Figaro. We went for it. More than once. And excellent points throughout your post.

That example you gave was the ultimate head shaker. Punt on 3rd down with 10 seconds left, near scoring range, and a chance to win. That just kills your team. And that just typifies our overly conservative philosophy on offence, defence and STs. Prevent. Play it safe. Take no chances. And that infects a team. Fear dominates.

Yes, fear has dominated in the past. I forgot about our third down gambles in this game. It was a different game offensively because we did different things....and not same old, predictable offence. The offensive results of this game reflect a less predictable offence.

I watched Wally's post game interview and he talked about the fact that when Rainey was playing tailback all game it was different than when he just comes into a game because defenses prepare for him to be the go to guy in that situation. Huh? Why havent' we given Rainey a series rather than just a few plays or sent him deep in the past.

Had we done some different things earlier in the season we would not likely be in the situation of missing the playoffs.

[TheLionKing]

Interesting Lions didn't try any 2 point conversions in this game.

[WestCoastJoe]

This is the genius of Chris Rainey. They don't teach this stuff. It is all instinct.

He is kind of a shape shifter.

001.png

On this reception. Amazing. Just let the kid play. Full time offence.

002.png

The defender is all over Rainey. But from Rainer's body language the defender has no idea where the ball is. LOL

003.png

Rainey does something with his body, kind of falling back, to the side, twisting, whatever, and he lands in the end zone. With the ball tucked in his grasp.

004.png

One on one. Nicely designed play and play call. Beautiful throw by Jennings. The rest is all Rainey.
.................

Running through the line. Defender has him in his sights. But Rainey is not there. Part of him is there, but the rest of him has the momentum, and the defender cannot lock on. Rainey slips away.

[The_Pauser]

I'll admit I haven't gone through the whole thread to see the responses, but are we going to give the coaches credit for this game? Special Teams is still a mess and needs a complete overhaul, and was the only reason why Winnipeg was still in this game. Aside from that we completely dominated this game on both sides of the ball. We were more aggressive, going for it on 3rd down a few times including inside the 5. A better game plan on both sides of the ball. I liked what I saw from some of the rookies too. Playing hard, playing for jobs for next year. Are we giving Wally credit for this game? Some are very quick to tear him down after a loss, so what about praising him after a win?

[David]

Some of the negative comments on here are a bit surprising...."we only beat them because they're so banged up, were without Matt Nichols" (hello? We rested 4 starters...). But I don't think we heap praise on Wally because of one win. Granted, his guys have not thrown in the towel like Kavis Reed's have in Montreal, so credit there. But let's be real here. It was likely the same practice routine, same pre-game "guys" speech, and same half-time speech.

What did surprise me was that he approved Khari's game plan with the empty backfield sets, isolating Rainey on a linebacker, etc and the third down gambles. You have to admit, 'risk' goes against his coaching philosophy. Anyway, credit goes to the whole organization for this one, especially the players. They get enough public blame when we lose, so good on them. Hopefully we can learn from the win and build off it.


DH

[DanoT]

I'll admit I haven't gone through the whole thread to see the responses, but are we going to give the coaches credit for this game? Special Teams is still a mess and needs a complete overhaul, and was the only reason why Winnipeg was still in this game. Aside from that we completely dominated this game on both sides of the ball. We were more aggressive, going for it on 3rd down a few times including inside the 5. A better game plan on both sides of the ball. I liked what I saw from some of the rookies too. Playing hard, playing for jobs for next year. Are we giving Wally credit for this game? Some are very quick to tear him down after a loss, so what about praising him after a win?

While there was improved play calling, I am still puzzled as to why the Lions almost never move the pocket to try and make it a little more of a guess for the pass rushing opponents.

Also nice to finally see some running plays with downfield blocking; something that can't be done with run/pass option plays.

As far as third down gambles: You know that Wally would never have allowed it if this wasn't a meaningless game.

The D gave up way too much yardage but salvaged the situation by tightening up in the red zone and forcing 7FG instead of TDs.

Had Nichols and or Harris not got injured, then this game would likely have been a Lions loss, so I am not about to praise the coaching staff.

The biggest positive is that it appears Jennings has got his mojo back. Or more correctly his shoulder is likely feeling a lot closer to 100%. I am not now and never have been ready to give up on Jennings. IMO an up grade in the play caller will help him greatly going forward.

[B.C.FAN]

It was a good game plan by the Lions on offence and defence. The offensive game plan worked because Jennings got rid of the ball quickly. The Bombers blitzed heavily at the start of the game but Jennings made quick decisions and burned them deep. Winnipeg was credited with only 7 QB pressures in this game, compared to 15 when these teams played two weeks ago. The difference was the game plan was designed to exploit weaknesses in the Bomber secondary, and Jennings and the receivers executed it perfectly.

The B.C. defence kept Andrew Harris in check for most of the game and kept the league's highest scoring offence out of the end zone for the second time in three weeks. That's another outstanding accomplishment.

B.C. dominated in time of possession (38:23 to 21:37) and in net offence (489 yards to 229). Only the Bombers' superiority on special teams kept the score respectable for them.

[David]

My 3 takeaways from Saturday's game:

1) Buck only got a quarter out of nickels.
2) The other 2 QBs should be playing for free.
3) Better QB options down south are a dime a dozen.

I think that's pretty much on the money, but just my two cents.



DH

[Sir Purrcival]

It was a good game plan by the Lions on offence and defence. The offensive game plan worked because Jennings got rid of the ball quickly. The Bombers blitzed heavily at the start of the game but Jennings made quick decisions and burned them deep. Winnipeg was credited with only 7 QB pressures in this game, compared to 15 when these teams played two weeks ago. The difference was the game plan was designed to exploit weaknesses in the Bomber secondary, and Jennings and the receivers executed it perfectly.

While this is a positive it begs the question why it took so long to come up with a more innovative game plan? And I'm not so sure that I feel as good about the defensive effort. Let's face it, the QB situation after Nichols went down was for the most part horrible for the Bombers. Especially when they went to LeFevour. He is awful and one of those that you wonder why he still has a place in this league. Davis was marginally better but what you would expect out of most 2nd string QB's. And that is the team that still managed to put up 27 points against us albeit some of it was on special teams. Really nothing to be all that excited about. And to put it bluntly, a day late and a dollar short. 2 wins in their last 9 and they finally try something a little more aggressive? That is not competent leadership and nothing that is praiseworthy. I don't think that this situation is redeemable. When it takes close to 11 weeks and when you are out of the playoffs, a small step in positive direction, means very little.

[WestCoastJoe]

My 3 takeaways from Saturday's game:

1) Buck only got a quarter out of nickels.
2) The other 2 QBs should be playing for free.
3) Better QB options down south are a dime a dozen.

I think that's pretty much on the money, but just my two cents.



DH

"A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore." --Yogi Berra ... The Bombers could not crack the dime defence with Nichols out. Meantime Jennings, with more time to spend in the pocket, destroyed the Bombers' nickel defence. We didn't have to nickel and dime our way down the field.

Pass the Buck? Yes, Buck was a passer, and a good one. And then Buck passed the quarterback job off to Nichols. Oh yeah, and there was a racehorse named Buckpasser, who won a record amount of money. He was much better than any quarterhorse.

The Buck stops here? Yup. Buck spent his early career in Vancouver. When that account ran dry, he finished his quarterbucking, err quarterbacking, time in Winnipeg.

One quarter out of Nichols is not worth much to the game score.

OK, David, I am done. LOL

[The_Pauser]

I'll admit I haven't gone through the whole thread to see the responses, but are we going to give the coaches credit for this game? Special Teams is still a mess and needs a complete overhaul, and was the only reason why Winnipeg was still in this game. Aside from that we completely dominated this game on both sides of the ball. We were more aggressive, going for it on 3rd down a few times including inside the 5. A better game plan on both sides of the ball. I liked what I saw from some of the rookies too. Playing hard, playing for jobs for next year. Are we giving Wally credit for this game? Some are very quick to tear him down after a loss, so what about praising him after a win?

While there was improved play calling, I am still puzzled as to why the Lions almost never move the pocket to try and make it a little more of a guess for the pass rushing opponents.

Also nice to finally see some running plays with downfield blocking; something that can't be done with run/pass option plays.

As far as third down gambles: You know that Wally would never have allowed it if this wasn't a meaningless game.

The D gave up way too much yardage but salvaged the situation by tightening up in the red zone and forcing 7FG instead of TDs.

Had Nichols and or Harris not got injured, then this game would likely have been a Lions loss, so I am not about to praise the coaching staff.

The biggest positive is that it appears Jennings has got his mojo back. Or more correctly his shoulder is likely feeling a lot closer to 100%. I am not now and never have been ready to give up on Jennings. IMO an up grade in the play caller will help him greatly going forward.

That's fair about moving the pocket. With a mobile QB like Jennings that should play to his strengths and give him the option to tuck and run.

The D gave up 241 yards...I'm not sure what you're expecting but that's a very good game if you ask me.

If it weren't for the points Winnipeg got from our lousy special teams (big kick return, blocked kick for a TD) this game looks quite lopsided.

At the time Harris got injured the game was more or less over. He wasn't changing the outcome with 5 minutes left. Nichols is another story, but given how our defense contained him last game I don't think that would have changed much. They talked about this on the post-game show that some would attribute this win to those injuries and it would be a shame if that were to happen. I agree with them. Nichols or Harris weren't going to change the outcome of this game.

[B.C.FAN]

While this is a positive it begs the question why it took so long to come up with a more innovative game plan? And I'm not so sure that I feel as good about the defensive effort. Let's face it, the QB situation after Nichols went down was for the most part horrible for the Bombers. Especially when they went to LeFevour. He is awful and one of those that you wonder why he still has a place in this league. Davis was marginally better but what you would expect out of most 2nd string QB's. And that is the team that still managed to put up 27 points against us albeit some of it was on special teams.

The Winnipeg offence generated 9 of the Bombers' 27 points, if you include the 48-yard field goal set up by Fenner's roughing the passer penalty. The others were generated by special teams (12) and turnovers (6). The B.C. defence can't be faulted for those points. It deserves a lot of credit for keeping the Bomber offence out of the end zone despite all those gifts from the B.C. offence and special teams.

The B.C. defence put up the two best performances of any team this season against Winnipeg's offence in their two meetings this month, holding the Bombers to 229 net yards of offence this week and a season-low of 214 yards on Oct. 14, when Nichols and Harris both played the full game. The Bombers didn't score an offensive touchdown in either game. Special teams and turnovers won the first game for the Bombers and kept the score respectable in the second game but B.C.'s defence was superb in both games.