Monday morning quarterback - some tough questions....

[David]

If Travis's shoulder wasn't 100% yesterday, should he have played the whole game?
- Just a thought. The '83 Argos got it done with Holloway and Barnes. I don't see what's wrong with putting in the back-up for a series or two, especially when he's very capable and had been playing most of the last 3 games anyway. Eff bruised egos. We have a game to win.


Did we field the best receiver combo?
- Not saying that Simon and Bruce were the problem by any means. But things really clicked offensively with Taylor and Jackson in the line-up, and Nick Moore is a natural slotback with size. Bruce hadn't played since September 29. Did the two vets do enough to get separation?


Did the crowd noise actually take US out of the game?
- Ironic isn't it? All week long we had been implored to show up and make noise. Well, their offense sailed through without a single precedure call, but we seemed rattled on D by a failure to communicate. Dave Dickenson even noticed this, "The fans were well real well-trained as far as being quiet when their offense was on the field, but defense, especially a veteran group that talks things out, makes checks, makes calls...all it takes is for one guy not to get it...and I'm sure that's what happened a couple of times."


Why did we not use Andrew Harris more often, or at the very least, more effectively?
- Our #1 weapon. I thought we had been under-utilizing him down the stretch, for the sole purpose of keeping him fresh for the big game. But he never seemed to be more than a check-down after thought than a key part of the game plan. Must have been gutted to watch his counterpart on the Stamps chew up big yardage.


DH

[The_Pauser]

1) I think ultimately we live and die by Lulay, but at the same time I don't think it would have hurt to put Reilly in there for a couple series at least midway through the third quarter. What we had going with Lulay wasn't working, so mixing it up for a bit before going back to Lulay wouldn't have hurt. Afterall he couldn't have done much worse.

2) Rather than Nick Moore I would have liked to have seen Courtney Taylor out there. I'm not a Moore fan at all and think he drops too many passes. He didn't have a bad game though, but I think Taylor would have had more success and opened things up a bit more for us. I definitely would have played Simon and Bruce and think that they both had good games. It was the playcalling that was bad, and unless you wanted these guys to venture away from their routes I don't see what more they could have done really.

3) It's possible that crowd noise hurt our team, but doubtful. These are veteran players who are used to playing with louder crowds. I think it's just a convenient excuse to attempt to explain why we had so many breakdowns.

4) Chapball returned and we got picked apart because of it. I agree we needed to use Harris a lot more than we did, and it was very sad that we wouldn't allow ourselves to set up the pass with a dangerous run. It's easy for defenses to defend against the pass when they know 85% of the playcalling will be a pass.

[D]

Why wasn't a challenge flag thrown earlier on Calgary's last TD?
I am still not convinced he got across the line .... I'm also not using that as an excuse for the loss as we were clearly outplayed

[SammyGreene]

Did we field the best receiver combo?
- Not saying that Simon and Bruce were the problem by any means. But things really clicked offensively with Taylor and Jackson in the line-up, and Nick Moore is a natural slotback with size. Bruce hadn't played since September 29. Did the two vets do enough to get separation?

30 hours later and I'm still having a hard time dealing with this. We all knew the Lions were more effective and more a vertical threat with Moore and Taylor playing the slots. I was at the game in Regina the last time Bruce and Simon started and they were getting smothered just like yesterday with little in the way of seperation. I exclusively watched Simon on a number of routes at Mosiac to notice he wasn't getting open yet Lulay still went his way a couple of times and was nearly picked. Unfortunately both got hurt but the offence looked very good for the next three weeks against Calgary, Hamilton and Edmonton. Three wins that clinched us first place.

Simon returns for the debacle against Calgary and amazingly gets scratched for the finale against the Riders. That one game was enough to deem him ready?

Sure you know what would have hit the fan if Simon was scratched yesterday. But Benevides showed too much loyalty to his veterans by starting both of them. Almost like he owed it to them because of their careers and for last year's cup run. Bruce should have been scratched at the very least, allowing Taylor to play.

Not saying it would have made the difference the way Calgary played but put the line-up on the field that gives you the best chance to win. The Lions didn't do that yesterday and a 13-5 season went up in smoke.

This is one tough question that should have been answered before Sunday's game rather than the off-season.

[WestCoastJoe]

If Travis's shoulder wasn't 100% yesterday, should he have played the whole game?

It wouldn't have made any difference. IMO ... Sometimes that stuff is counter productive also.

Did we field the best receiver combo?

Tough call. God Bless Geroy and Arland. But they don't get separation. They lack speed. Geroy does not win fights for the ball. They don't get deep. I would say this was their last gasp. We had to start them.


Did the crowd noise actually take US out of the game?

Should be irrelevant. But I wonder if it affected communication, as on the first TD to McDaniel.


Why did we not use Andrew Harris more often, or at the very least, more effectively?

Calgary keyed on Andrew of course. He needs a gap here and there. It seems to me, he got a lot of his yardage this year just on his elusiveness. Plus he is not a big, pounding horse. Plus he tended to rack up yardage late in games when the D was tired and he was not. Yeah we should have run more.

No endarounds either.

Once again, I think we slipped back into predicatable stuff. Dickenson crafted a new game plan. Their D did some different stuff. It worked. They were ready for our O: Keep Lulay in the pocket. Take away the deep stuff. Tackle fast and well, and take away the YAC. Key on Andrew. Gang tackle.

On D I think they had our tendencies well scoped. The first TD looked like it came out just as they had hoped. They may have caught our run defence on a bad game, but Cornish sure did take it to us.
..........

Yeah some different stuff might have helped.

But how do we match the Stampeders' intensity?

How do we avoid the two week layoff flu?

How do we deal with Kevin Glenn playing for a capstone to his career? Was God smiling on him? If not for that first gift TD, he may have been too wired to play well.

How do we get the intensity back in our D Line, which IMO never recovered from trying to integrate Solo?

Same with Khalif ... Should Jordan have played instead? How can you do that?

Sometimes it is just karma, favouring the other team.

How do we deal with Hufnagel's intensity, trying to get back to the Cup for the first time since 2008?

We did not tackle Cornish well. Our D Line had no jump. Should have gone with 6 men. And other than the blown coverages Glenn did not rack up huge yardage, or a high number of completions.

Offensively we had to be content with a slow grind it out day. But we have to punch in some scores too.

The elements were still there for victory. But I don't think we would have deserved it. Mostly because of lack of intensity. Motivation, game planning and some overconfidence (as indicated by comments before and after by players such as Reid and Marsh).

Reid: We're so talented ... blah blah blah

Marsh: I never doubted we would win; just wondered by how much.

Sometimes it is better to be scared. Not always. There is no one magic formula for all occasions.

[sj-roc]

Why wasn't a challenge flag thrown earlier on Calgary's last TD?
I am still not convinced he got across the line .... I'm also not using that as an excuse for the loss as we were clearly outplayed

From what I heard on 1040 the play was reviewed by the control room in Tor (as all scores are by current league policy) although that default review went unannounced at least in the stadium.

Still, there was that game earlier in the season where a coach (Argos? I forget) challenged a TD and it got overturned in spite of its having already been reviewed as above, and initially allowed to stand by such review. So by that precedent there was nothing to lose by throwing the yellow flag. What's not clear to me is, was the play not reviewed because the flag was thrown too late (after the convert snap), or was it not reviewed because as a score they already reviewed it?

I agree it wasn't a win/loss proposition. Our offence would have taken over on our own 1-yd line if the score were overturned — far from clear we would have done anything with that lousy field position.

[B.C.FAN]

Why wasn't a challenge flag thrown earlier on Calgary's last TD?
I am still not convinced he got across the line .... I'm also not using that as an excuse for the loss as we were clearly outplayed

All touchdowns are automatically reviewed. All that is needed is for ball to touch the plane of the goal line, which it did. By the time Benevides thought about challenging the play, the touchdown ruling had already been reviewed and upheld.

[Cougar Country]

Did the crowd noise actually take US out of the game?
- Ironic isn't it? All week long we had been implored to show up and make noise. Well, their offense sailed through without a single precedure call, but we seemed rattled on D by a failure to communicate. Dave Dickenson even noticed this, "The fans were well real well-trained as far as being quiet when their offense was on the field, but defense, especially a veteran group that talks things out, makes checks, makes calls...all it takes is for one guy not to get it...and I'm sure that's what happened a couple of times."

This was also noted on the TSN broadcast, and mentioned that Benny didn't have them practice with crowd noise like Wally used to.

[David]

Did the crowd noise actually take US out of the game?
- Ironic isn't it? All week long we had been implored to show up and make noise. Well, their offense sailed through without a single precedure call, but we seemed rattled on D by a failure to communicate. Dave Dickenson even noticed this, "The fans were well real well-trained as far as being quiet when their offense was on the field, but defense, especially a veteran group that talks things out, makes checks, makes calls...all it takes is for one guy not to get it...and I'm sure that's what happened a couple of times."

This was also noted on the TSN broadcast, and mentioned that Benny didn't have them practice with crowd noise like Wally used to.

I've noticed that the TSN telecasts don't do the crowd noise justice. It was really LOUD in there Sunday afternoon, yet I was amazed at how unaffected Kevin Glenn and the Stamps' offense was by it all. It reached a fever pitch on 3rd and goal when most of the building was standing (the play that was allegedly reviewd in the command centre). By this point, we were well behind too. Can you imagine the noise if we'd had the lead?


DH

[JohnHenry]

Some more revelations have come out. Buono admitted today the Lions were out-coached in the WF (although he didn't exactly say that). The Stamps used formations they hadn't used all season, like a zone defence in the red-zone (or the Stamps 1-man DL) which made the Lions offensive pre-snap "misdirection and trickery" motion useless...the Lions had no answer to that and floundered in the red-zone.

The Stamps went for the jugular and seized their opportunities, like teams must do to win in the playoffs, while the Lions came out with their conservative vanilla offence, kitty-bar-the-door, short passes underneath and run to the sidelines, just don't make any mistakes and the defence will win the game. Some people criticize Lulay, but that's been the Lions game-plan all season.

I remember Chuck Knox and the Seahawks playoff game in Miami years ago. "Ground" Chuck and the run-intensive Seahawks started the game with 12 straight passing plays, I believe. The Dolphins were flummoxed by this and the Seahawks moved the ball at will. In the playoffs you do the unexpected, use the tendency-breaker plays you've been setting up all year (like the on-side kickoff or the sleeper play). The Stamps did this while the Lions thought they could just show up and win.

The Lions played right into the Stamps hands. The Lion coaches had no answers for what the Stamps did during the game. The loss rest squarely on Benevides shoulders in my view. That's his job to develop the game-plan and he should have helped Chaps react to the Stamp's curve-balls. And where was Buono with all his experience? He should have been sending notes down from the press box.

If they were trying to save Harris for the Grey Cup (9 rushes?) where was Tim Brown, our best RB up the middle?

I will cut the defence some slack as the Lions could not get to K. Glenn, which will expose any secondary. Glenn played a masterful game of evading the rush and throwing picture-purrfect passes down-field...supposedly his weak link. Credit must be given to the Stamps OL for neutralizing the Lions pass rush.

On that 2nd-play Stamps TD pass, the Lions had an 8-men pass rush, which was obviously a blown assignment. There were so many pass rushers they were blocking each others way from reaching the QB.

I am still numbed by the Lions performance on Sunday. The Lions had the talent to win but were unprepared and out-coached in all facets of the game.

[B.C.FAN]

Outcoached? Definitely. But it was because the Lions who were aggressive and took costly risks on defence while the Stamps played conservatively and kept everything in front of them. When the Lions tried to go deep, two Stamps were there. When the Stamps tried to go deep, no Lions were there.

[SJ46]

I thouht the noise did play a negative factor for our defense. They did seem to be having trouble communicating. But surely that isn't the first time that has happened. I think the bigger factor was the Lions thinking too far ahead to the Grey Cup game and not being ready to play this particular game against a battle-scarred Calgary team that was way more ready to play.

[David]

Outcoached? Definitely. But it was because the Lions who were aggressive and took costly risks on defence while the Stamps played conservatively and kept everything in front of them. When the Lions tried to go deep, two Stamps were there. When the Stamps tried to go deep, no Lions were there.

Yea, what was with the Cover Zero? Was that called in the huddle (or from the sideline) or a last second decision by Cauchy that didn't get communicated? Our blitzes just weren't effective. I'm not sure if Reddick is still hurt (groin), but I noticed he wasn't able to get near the quarterback on the blitz down the stretch.


DH

[TheLionKing]

I've seen too many Buono teams being outcoached in the finals

[B.C.FAN]

Outcoached? Definitely. But it was because the Lions who were aggressive and took costly risks on defence while the Stamps played conservatively and kept everything in front of them. When the Lions tried to go deep, two Stamps were there. When the Stamps tried to go deep, no Lions were there.

Yea, what was with the Cover Zero? Was that called in the huddle (or from the sideline) or a last second decision by Cauchy that didn't get communicated? Our blitzes just weren't effective. I'm not sure if Reddick is still hurt (groin), but I noticed he wasn't able to get near the quarterback on the blitz down the stretch.


DH

On the McDaniel touchdown, Calgary's pre-snap motion changed the balance of the formation. Judging by the finger-pointing afterwards, Reddick should have picked up McDaniel. Instead he blitzed and left McDaniel open. The Lions have blitzed regularly in that situation and have set the tone for many games by sacking the quarterback or forcing an errant throw. The Stampeders game-planned accordingly and would have had a mismatch over the middle even if Reddick had picked up McDaniel.

On the Bryant touchdown, Muamba was waving his arms prior to the snap to signal a change in the defence. I gather it was to be a variant of a cover-2, with Marsh playing deep on that side. Whether due to crowd noise or the lateness of the call, Marsh didn't get it. Banks and Muamba were expecting Marsh to be deep and were waving their arms at him after the play.