You may be absolutely right Shi Zip Mi, and I am inclined to buy into what you are saying. Still Kruck had some marvelous play calling in the game plan in Calgary, as executed by Joe Smith, up until the 4th quarter where conservative measures could well have compromised the final score.
It is clear that you have been watching closely but though I am reluctant to change Krucks function for that Barresi's, you may well be onto what indeed necessary to succeed.
Wally has been quoted as saying that his successes have been because of the resources he surrounds himself with.
It is also evident that Wally was betrayed by Chapdelaine, used and left in the breach for a single credible Offensive Coordinator.
We have what we have to work with this season, but something is telling me that we have all the pieces to the puzzle, but it is only a matter of realizing this, and making the pieces fit.
Lions' Offensive Struggles: Game Plan or Execution?
Moderator: Team Captains
-
PigSkin_53
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3926
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:47 am
"Just Win Baby" ~ Al Davis
-
TheLionKing
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 25104
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
- Location: Vancouver
Most spotters assist in play calling but it's up to the Offensive Coordinator to have the final say.Toppy Vann wrote: Why isn't the spotter able to assist in play calling? Again, a missed toss is not the coaches doing it.
-
Toppy Vann
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 9798
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm
I posted this to get people to think that, yah right, the play calling IS assisted by the guy upstairs. Just a point that it is not just Kruck on the spot.TheLionKing wrote:Most spotters assist in play calling but it's up to the Offensive Coordinator to have the final say.Toppy Vann wrote: Why isn't the spotter able to assist in play calling? Again, a missed toss is not the coaches doing it.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
The last game, our loss to the Riders, was definitely a poor game plan and poor play calling. There have been games where the game plan and play calling was excellent.
We began this season with a philosophy of wanting to run the football more often. We also decided to use the two back set of Joe Smith at fullback and Ian Smart at tailback once in a while to be able to run inside and outside...a good move. We never ran two back set at all last season, except at the very end of the year.
In the Calgary game we added a wrinkle by bringing in Lyle Green at fullback (something many of us have advocated for) and it worked wonderfully. Our Leos added an occasional reverse this season and against Calgary we put Geroy in motion early and threw the football to him on a quick swing, something we did last season to get him involved early.
All those concepts appeared that our offence was at least moving in the right direction, even though the passing attack continued to struggle. However, our last game plan and play calling against the Riders showed some flaws in our offensive coaching.
There were three major flaws..the first was that we didn't use the run more and balance our attack, the second was that we didn't move the pocket for Jarious and had him throw 38 times, and the third was that we used every formation under the sun, sporadically, instead of simplyfying the game plan for him....it was a game plan for a Dave Dickenson perhaps but not a third string quarterback playing his first CFL game.
As you're aware I'm not a huge fan of 'plug and play' offences. The Hufnagel offence had it's day when it was innovative, using spread formations and bunch formations to take advantage of simple defenses.
However, it's a tired, predictable offence that CFL defenses have seen a ton of, as almost every CFL team has adopted it in one way or another. It's also a boring offence, with an ace backfield and two simple zone type running plays... and it's a pocket passing offence, with a quarterback catching the shotgun snap, making a read, and then delivering the football (or attempting to). You can live with it when it's working but when it's not it's not only boring but also frustrating to watch.
Our offence was best in the league under Burratto in 2003 and the combination of Burratto and Chapdelaine's influence in 2004. The problem with Burratto's offences are they are complex and need a very smart quarterback.
Our offence was sixth in the league for most of 2005, until Printers stepped in for the last part of the season. In 2006 it was second again, again with a very high pass ratio, while being seventh in run atttempts and fifth in rushing, including quarterback runs, in both 2005 and 2006. It was a very unbalanced offence the last two seasons and struggled against good defenses. However, when on, it was a very good passing offence, with Dickenson and Buck leading the league in passing percentage and quarterback efficiency last season.
The changes that Kruck and Dorazio (and Wally) are trying to implement are good changes...using two back backfields at times, using Smart to get outside, using Green to block, going two tight ends at times, and trying to be more multi-formational. The problem is that it's not like throwing new spices into a recipe randomly. Changing formations on each play is sometimes not necessary.
An offence can go two back set for a series or part of a series and the same goes for other formations as well. What concerns me is that we go two back set with Green and Smith against Calgary and mow then down and then only throw Green in for a play or two against the Riders. We go two back set with Smith and Smart for a couple of games and then don't even use that set against the Riders. We need better flow for our offence.
A second problem is just plain execution. It hasn't been helped by the quality of our quarterback decision making, including not involving all our receivers or our quarterback passing effectiveness, or our receiver play overall.
A third problem is not the dual offensive coordinator role but a lack of confidence in Kruck. The game plan is by committee, as it has always been, but Kruck calls the plays, with spotting from Baresi and down and distance from Dorazio. There is no communication problem among the offensive coaches. Some players have been unhappy with the decision to have Kruck call the plays since Day 1 at camp! The reasons are hard to determine. A couple were favorites of Chapdelaine and the change was hard and blame Wally for Chap leaving. Some don't believe Kruck has the credentials and it should have been Dorazio taking over.
So, in essence, we have 3 major problems. The first is a tired passing game that defenses are onto and an offence that also lacks variety. We don't screen or move the pocket or have anything in our offence that another team couldn't predict before each game.
The second, is that while the changes we're trying to put into place are positive they haven't been put into a coherent philosophy and pattern and some players lack confidence in the coaching they are receiving.
The third is just plain quarterback and receiver play that has not been up to standard and isn't getting better but worse due to the changes at the quarterback position.
We began this season with a philosophy of wanting to run the football more often. We also decided to use the two back set of Joe Smith at fullback and Ian Smart at tailback once in a while to be able to run inside and outside...a good move. We never ran two back set at all last season, except at the very end of the year.
In the Calgary game we added a wrinkle by bringing in Lyle Green at fullback (something many of us have advocated for) and it worked wonderfully. Our Leos added an occasional reverse this season and against Calgary we put Geroy in motion early and threw the football to him on a quick swing, something we did last season to get him involved early.
All those concepts appeared that our offence was at least moving in the right direction, even though the passing attack continued to struggle. However, our last game plan and play calling against the Riders showed some flaws in our offensive coaching.
There were three major flaws..the first was that we didn't use the run more and balance our attack, the second was that we didn't move the pocket for Jarious and had him throw 38 times, and the third was that we used every formation under the sun, sporadically, instead of simplyfying the game plan for him....it was a game plan for a Dave Dickenson perhaps but not a third string quarterback playing his first CFL game.
As you're aware I'm not a huge fan of 'plug and play' offences. The Hufnagel offence had it's day when it was innovative, using spread formations and bunch formations to take advantage of simple defenses.
However, it's a tired, predictable offence that CFL defenses have seen a ton of, as almost every CFL team has adopted it in one way or another. It's also a boring offence, with an ace backfield and two simple zone type running plays... and it's a pocket passing offence, with a quarterback catching the shotgun snap, making a read, and then delivering the football (or attempting to). You can live with it when it's working but when it's not it's not only boring but also frustrating to watch.
Our offence was best in the league under Burratto in 2003 and the combination of Burratto and Chapdelaine's influence in 2004. The problem with Burratto's offences are they are complex and need a very smart quarterback.
Our offence was sixth in the league for most of 2005, until Printers stepped in for the last part of the season. In 2006 it was second again, again with a very high pass ratio, while being seventh in run atttempts and fifth in rushing, including quarterback runs, in both 2005 and 2006. It was a very unbalanced offence the last two seasons and struggled against good defenses. However, when on, it was a very good passing offence, with Dickenson and Buck leading the league in passing percentage and quarterback efficiency last season.
The changes that Kruck and Dorazio (and Wally) are trying to implement are good changes...using two back backfields at times, using Smart to get outside, using Green to block, going two tight ends at times, and trying to be more multi-formational. The problem is that it's not like throwing new spices into a recipe randomly. Changing formations on each play is sometimes not necessary.
An offence can go two back set for a series or part of a series and the same goes for other formations as well. What concerns me is that we go two back set with Green and Smith against Calgary and mow then down and then only throw Green in for a play or two against the Riders. We go two back set with Smith and Smart for a couple of games and then don't even use that set against the Riders. We need better flow for our offence.
A second problem is just plain execution. It hasn't been helped by the quality of our quarterback decision making, including not involving all our receivers or our quarterback passing effectiveness, or our receiver play overall.
A third problem is not the dual offensive coordinator role but a lack of confidence in Kruck. The game plan is by committee, as it has always been, but Kruck calls the plays, with spotting from Baresi and down and distance from Dorazio. There is no communication problem among the offensive coaches. Some players have been unhappy with the decision to have Kruck call the plays since Day 1 at camp! The reasons are hard to determine. A couple were favorites of Chapdelaine and the change was hard and blame Wally for Chap leaving. Some don't believe Kruck has the credentials and it should have been Dorazio taking over.
So, in essence, we have 3 major problems. The first is a tired passing game that defenses are onto and an offence that also lacks variety. We don't screen or move the pocket or have anything in our offence that another team couldn't predict before each game.
The second, is that while the changes we're trying to put into place are positive they haven't been put into a coherent philosophy and pattern and some players lack confidence in the coaching they are receiving.
The third is just plain quarterback and receiver play that has not been up to standard and isn't getting better but worse due to the changes at the quarterback position.
"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)
What I don't understand Blitz is they became pass happy even when the game was not out of reach??!! I could understand if they were down by 21 early and had no choice but it kills me to see pass after pass when Smart and Smith could be easing a lot of the pressure on JJ's shoulders. I am just a "dumb" fan but it seems to make sense to me???
Thank you for everything you did for OUR Lions Mr.Ackles, we will never forget you...RIP
-
midwestlion
- Starter
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:02 am
What I don't understand Blitz is they became pass happy even when the game was not out of reach??!! I could understand if they were down by 21 early and had no choice but it kills me to see pass after pass when Smart and Smith could be easing a lot of the pressure on JJ's shoulders. I am just a "dumb" fan but it seems to make sense to me???
Exactly. It almost looked like they were given JJ pratice reps in a game. 37 passing attempts. Cmon
-
milky
You make an excellent point.lion24 wrote:What I don't understand Blitz is they became pass happy even when the game was not out of reach??!! I could understand if they were down by 21 early and had no choice but it kills me to see pass after pass when Smart and Smith could be easing a lot of the pressure on JJ's shoulders. I am just a "dumb" fan but it seems to make sense to me???
For some reason cfl off. co-ordinators abandon the running game way too early.
If they're behind by more than 7 pts. in the 2nd half, you can pretty well guarantee it'll be pass, pass, and more pass.
Why they do this has been a nagging question of mine for years.
-
Soundy
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3139
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:51 pm
- Location: Watching on TSNHD.
- Contact:
I think it's the game plan... this is going exactly as it's supposed to, to lull the other teams' Defense squads into complacency. :D
(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
-
milky
Yes it should've been an integral part of their attack! Sask. may have had the #1 defence against the run, but the Lions had the #1 running offence. To totally abandon it didn't make any sense. If you're the best at something, what better way to establish that status than to take it to Sask.JohnHenry wrote:It seems so obvious that the Lions should of ran more against Sask. But Lions have gained much of their rushing yardage later in games, in mop up duty to run out the clock. With the Lions behind on the scoreboard, should they of used the running game more, as an integral part of the attack? ...against the No. 1 defence against the run?? ...Perhaps putting JJ at 2nd and long all night?? That is the only reason I can think of as why they didn't run more, unless it was just incompetant play calling?
Especially with JJ starting at qb. Running the ball would've given the Lions their best chance to win, considering all the injuries.
Wally must realize he made a mistake, hopefully they'll learn from it.
Having a third string quarterback, in his first CFL start and first pro start in 4 years, throw a football 38 times while only running the football 9 times is something that has a number of pro coaches shaking their heads.Yes it should've been an integral part of their attack! Sask. may have had the #1 defence against the run, but the Lions had the #1 running offence. To totally abandon it didn't make any sense. If you're the best at something, what better way to establish that status than to take it to Sask.
Especially with JJ starting at qb. Running the ball would've given the Lions their best chance to win, considering all the injuries.
Wally must realize he made a mistake, hopefully they'll learn from it.
Even if we had the worst run offence and the Riders had the best run defense you need to attempt to run the football more than that...especially when you're keeping your quarterback in the pocket almost every play!!
"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)