Smart Move - Lowell's blog

[WestCoastJoe]

from Lowell Ullrich's blog in the Province, as of last night ...

It's downhill for Kahlil; Lions make Smart move

The Lions played roster roulette Tuesday and Kahlil Hill came up a loser for a second time.

Realizing they couldn't keep juggling the lineup each week trying to keep Charles Roberts, Ian Smart and Stefan Logan gainfully employed at the same time, they instead cut Hill, and apparently he did not take the news quite as well as when he was bounced a few weeks back and told to stick around town.

Chances are Hill won't be cut by the Lions a third time.

It really was the only way to get Smart back to returning kicks. Rufus Skillern might have been voted off in the eyes of some Lions fans, but Wally Buono saw promise in a rookie receiver when weighed against Hill, a 29-year-old who has shots with two previous CFL clubs.

The result?

O'Neil Wilson, who has had three failed CFL bids, will effectively take Hill's spot as the fifth receiver, so there's room for some debate. Wilson, of course, is a Canadian, and therefore gives the Lions a bit of wiggle room.
And don't even ask what happens if Jason Clermont doesn't play, which remains a possibility given the fact he did not practice Tuesday. Clermont was x-rayed to determine the extent of a nerve injury which slowed him Saturday. The results were positive, but there's still no guarantee he'll dress in his hometown against the Riders Saturday.

At least Smart's back, which might make Logan more effective offensively in the next game.

Ian Smart is back on the playing roster, at least for now, in the Lions' Merry-Go-Round for Running Backs. An import had to go, and Kahlil Hill drew the short straw.

I'm glad that Smart is re-activated, although I'm wondering if this is cast in stone. That solidifies the kick return game.

I'm not sure dressing 3 scatbacks is the ideal arrangement. Unless 2 of them are in the backfield together, it would seem you only need 2 of them: 1 running back, and 1 kick returner. Last game, Roberts and Logan were only in the backfield together less than a handful of times.

Now that we have Charles Roberts, I expect he will be the feature back. A 10,000 yard back, a future Hall of Fame member, isn't going to be acquired to sit on the bench. The thing the Lions might do, which they will be reluctant to do, is to sit Stefan Logan down. Logan has been very effective, and IMO, looking, potentially, even more productive than Roberts, at this stage of their careers. If Roberts and Logan are not used together in this next game, it would seem to make little sense to have both of them dressed.

[Wakesbetterthanyou]

It's downhill for Kahlil; Lions make Smart move

The Lions played roster roulette Tuesday and Kahlil Hill came up a loser for a second time.

Realizing they couldn't keep juggling the lineup each week trying to keep Charles Roberts, Ian Smart and Stefan Logan gainfully employed at the same time, they instead cut Hill, and apparently he did not take the news quite as well as when he was bounced a few weeks back and told to stick around town.

Chances are Hill won't be cut by the Lions a third time.

It really was the only way to get Smart back to returning kicks. Rufus Skillern might have been voted off in the eyes of some Lions fans, but Wally Buono saw promise in a rookie receiver when weighed against Hill, a 29-year-old who has shots with two previous CFL clubs.

The result?

O'Neil Wilson, who has had three failed CFL bids, will effectively take Hill's spot as the fifth receiver, so there's room for some debate. Wilson, of course, is a Canadian, and therefore gives the Lions a bit of wiggle room.
And don't even ask what happens if Jason Clermont doesn't play, which remains a possibility given the fact he did not practice Tuesday. Clermont was x-rayed to determine the extent of a nerve injury which slowed him Saturday. The results were positive, but there's still no guarantee he'll dress in his hometown against the Riders Saturday.

At least Smart's back, which might make Logan more effective offensively in the next game.

Ian Smart is back on the playing roster, at least for now, in the Lions' Merry-Go-Round for Running Backs. An import had to go, and Kahlil Hill drew the short straw.

I'm glad that Smart is re-activated, although I'm wondering if this is for cast in stone. That solidifies the kick return game.

I'm not sure dressing 3 scatbacks is the ideal arrangement. Unless 2 of them are in the backfield together, it would seem you only need 2 of them: 1 running back, and 1 kick returner. Last game, Roberts and Logan were only in the backfield together less than a handful of times.

Now that we have Charles Roberts, I expect he will be the feature back. A 10,000 yard back, a future Hall of Fame member, isn't going to be acquired to sit on the bench. The thing the Lions might do, which they will be reluctant to do, is to sit Stefan Logan down. Logan has been very effective, and IMO, looking, potentially, even more productive than Roberts, at this stage of their careers. If Roberts and Logan are not used together in this next game, it would seem to make little sense to have both of them dressed.

Taking logan out of the lineup is a very poor idea. Logan needs to be used more, this has been echo'd around the league. Taking logan out of the lineup would anger me.

[Soundy]

As WCJ suggests, though, there's nothing saying this is cast in stone. A personnel decision for the next game, doesn't necessarily need to be for every subsequent game. The advantage of having all these tools and options is that the coach can switch things up from one game to the next, keep defenses off-kilter, and fine-tune the lineup to different teams' strengths.

It wouldn't be unlike the "line juggling" and "line matching" that's very in common in hockey - I don't know how often the concept is used in football, but I sure don't hear it mentioned at all, so I would assume very little.

[Wakesbetterthanyou]

As WCJ suggests, though, there's nothing saying this is cast in stone. A personnel decision for the next game, doesn't necessarily need to be for every subsequent game. The advantage of having all these tools and options is that the coach can switch things up from one game to the next, keep defenses off-kilter, and fine-tune the lineup to different teams' strengths.

It wouldn't be unlike the "line juggling" and "line matching" that's very in common in hockey - I don't know how often the concept is used in football, but I sure don't hear it mentioned at all, so I would assume very little.

yea, and we all kno how players love to be line juggled in hockey. Doesnt sound like a good idea to me, sounds more like an idea that will have players looking at other teams first. I dont think anyone would like being shuffled around at their jobs every week.

[B.C.FAN]

Now that we have Charles Roberts, I expect he will be the feature back.

I agree. I was impressed with Roberts in his debut. He and Logan can dance around and find a seam, but Roberts is better at putting his head down and getting positive yardage when there isn't a seam. Logan is stopped too often at the line of scrimmage.

There will be opportunities to use both scatbacks at once. Toronto's defence, unless Matthews make substantial changes, can be exploited to B.C.'s advantage. Saskatchewan's isn't. It needs to be attacked vertically. I expect Logan to get some touches but have a limited role on offence this week.

[WestCoastJoe]

There will be opportunities to use both scatbacks at once. Toronto's defence, unless Matthews make substantial changes, can be exploited to B.C.'s advantage. Saskatchewan's isn't. It needs to be attacked vertically. I expect Logan to get some touches but have a limited role on offence this week.

I do expect CR will be the feature back, based on his career, etc. Personally, I think Logan is the more dangerous weapon at this time. My guess: Logan will be more of a factor in the future.

As Soundy points out, it does give us the depth to keep them all fresh, and to deal with nicks and bruises. There are many possibilities. In fact, there are so many it is presenting Wally with that difficult problem, how to keep all the valuable assets happy when there are not enough touches or time for all of them.

[Soundy]

As WCJ suggests, though, there's nothing saying this is cast in stone. A personnel decision for the next game, doesn't necessarily need to be for every subsequent game. The advantage of having all these tools and options is that the coach can switch things up from one game to the next, keep defenses off-kilter, and fine-tune the lineup to different teams' strengths.

It wouldn't be unlike the "line juggling" and "line matching" that's very in common in hockey - I don't know how often the concept is used in football, but I sure don't hear it mentioned at all, so I would assume very little.

yea, and we all kno how players love to be line juggled in hockey. Doesnt sound like a good idea to me, sounds more like an idea that will have players looking at other teams first. I dont think anyone would like being shuffled around at their jobs every week.

Not really talking about shuffling "jobs" as such, but maybe assignments a bit. One week you run Smart/Roberts/Logan, the next week it's just Smart/Roberts, the next Logan/Roberts... now and then you give Smart extra duty as a RB (as we've seen before, to good effect). As long as it's clear, should you sit someone out one game, that it's because it's a different gameplan and not because of his performance or anything else... the true TEAM players will understand this and accept their roles and if it works, will relish the TEAM victory. If they're going to get pissy because the coach wants to try something a little different, well, maybe you don't WANT someone that self-centered on your team (*ahem*CP).

Hockey players understand that line matching is an important part of the strategic game - it's been that way for a very long time and they've grown up understanding that through watching and learning and playing it, so it's not like it's unusual to them. I doubt that it upsets more than a very few of them to be "juggled" - if your coach knows your specific strengths and wants to use you differently to maximize them against different teams, where's the diss in that?

[Wakesbetterthanyou]

As WCJ suggests, though, there's nothing saying this is cast in stone. A personnel decision for the next game, doesn't necessarily need to be for every subsequent game. The advantage of having all these tools and options is that the coach can switch things up from one game to the next, keep defenses off-kilter, and fine-tune the lineup to different teams' strengths.

It wouldn't be unlike the "line juggling" and "line matching" that's very in common in hockey - I don't know how often the concept is used in football, but I sure don't hear it mentioned at all, so I would assume very little.

yea, and we all kno how players love to be line juggled in hockey. Doesnt sound like a good idea to me, sounds more like an idea that will have players looking at other teams first. I dont think anyone would like being shuffled around at their jobs every week.

Not really talking about shuffling "jobs" as such, but maybe assignments a bit. One week you run Smart/Roberts/Logan, the next week it's just Smart/Roberts, the next Logan/Roberts... now and then you give Smart extra duty as a RB (as we've seen before, to good effect). As long as it's clear, should you sit someone out one game, that it's because it's a different gameplan and not because of his performance or anything else... the true TEAM players will understand this and accept their roles and if it works, will relish the TEAM victory. If they're going to get pissy because the coach wants to try something a little different, well, maybe you don't WANT someone that self-centered on your team (*ahem*CP).

Hockey players understand that line matching is an important part of the strategic game - it's been that way for a very long time and they've grown up understanding that through watching and learning and playing it, so it's not like it's unusual to them. I doubt that it upsets more than a very few of them to be "juggled" - if your coach knows your specific strengths and wants to use you differently to maximize them against different teams, where's the diss in that?

Playing myself at the uni level i kno that players DO NOT like to be juggled around on lines in hockey. Same as they dont like playing out of position, they will do it, but their stats usually drop. Players, esp in hockey, need to develop chemistry with the ppl they are playing with. When u are consistantly jumpin around between ppl you rarely get the job done well. Look at the canucks last year, they were pathetic, part because of a lack of talent, part because of lack of chemistry. Taking players out of the lineup also ruins their on field momentum, forcing them to wait a whole extra week to get out to game action. Those of you who have played will know that when u sit out, it is EXTRA hard to get back in and back on track.

[Soundy]

Like I said, it's a part of the game and has been for a very long time, and players that don't like it shouldn't be playing at a pro level. I'm sure a lot of players don't like being body-checked into the end boards, either, but that's part of the game too. The ones that don't learn to either duck it cleanly, or suck it up and keep going, won't last long.

Likewise in football... if you're a QB and you can't handle getting sacked, well, you shouldn't be playing pro then. Doesn't mean you have to LIKE it, but you have to accept that it's part of what you do. And by that token, there's no reason a coach exercising a little creativity in his lineups should be a "hated" thing for the players, especially if it helps the team win. If it's not commonly done already, then yeah, it's gonna mean a bit of adjustment for the players, but in the end, the good of the TEAM should be what matters, no?

[Wakesbetterthanyou]

Like I said, it's a part of the game and has been for a very long time, and players that don't like it shouldn't be playing at a pro level. I'm sure a lot of players don't like being body-checked into the end boards, either, but that's part of the game too. The ones that don't learn to either duck it cleanly, or suck it up and keep going, won't last long.

Likewise in football... if you're a QB and you can't handle getting sacked, well, you shouldn't be playing pro then. Doesn't mean you have to LIKE it, but you have to accept that it's part of what you do. And by that token, there's no reason a coach exercising a little creativity in his lineups should be a "hated" thing for the players, especially if it helps the team win. If it's not commonly done already, then yeah, it's gonna mean a bit of adjustment for the players, but in the end, the good of the TEAM should be what matters, no?

agreed, as long as it IS good for the team. tho bodychecks and sacks are part of the game, line juggling is a decision made by coaches. Coaches all have diff philosophies, and there are some that wont linematch/juggle, those coaches are usually the ones with the most confidence in their players.

[lion rampant]

There will be opportunities to use both scatbacks at once. Toronto's defence, unless Matthews make substantial changes, can be exploited to B.C.'s advantage. Saskatchewan's isn't. It needs to be attacked vertically. I expect Logan to get some touches but have a limited role on offence this week.

I do expect CR will be the feature back, based on his career, etc. Personally, I think Logan is the more dangerous weapon at this time. My guess: Logan will be more of a factor in the future.

As Soundy points out, it does give us the depth to keep them all fresh, and to deal with nicks and bruises. There are many possibilities. In fact, there are so many it is presenting Wally with that difficult problem, how to keep all the valuable assets happy when there are not enough touches or time for all of them.

Having three very good backs/returners going in to the last third of the season not only gives us good depth, but also allows us to bring in new packages every week, and keeps defences guessing. The ability to have both CR and SL in the back field, and then swing one or both out as a reciever will not only be huge for running yards but open up the middle for recievers, and for Buck to run.

[Toppy Vann]

Like I said, it's a part of the game and has been for a very long time, and players that don't like it shouldn't be playing at a pro level. I'm sure a lot of players don't like being body-checked into the end boards, either, but that's part of the game too. The ones that don't learn to either duck it cleanly, or suck it up and keep going, won't last long.

Likewise in football... if you're a QB and you can't handle getting sacked, well, you shouldn't be playing pro then. Doesn't mean you have to LIKE it, but you have to accept that it's part of what you do. And by that token, there's no reason a coach exercising a little creativity in his lineups should be a "hated" thing for the players, especially if it helps the team win. If it's not commonly done already, then yeah, it's gonna mean a bit of adjustment for the players, but in the end, the good of the TEAM should be what matters, no?

I am with my good pal WakesBetterThanYOU on this one.

As far as players being sent into the boards as part of the game, you are wrong. The consequences for doing that can bring both civil and/or criminal sanctions if that player is paralyzed. That has happens. While some hockey players will say it is, they are foolish as it is a) against the rules of hockey and b) is an easy case to prove in a court of law for major damages ($$$) in a court of law. Fighting is a bit tougher to prove in court but it too is sanctionable by criminal and civil courts.

As far as QBs having to suck it up and take the sacks, you are forgetting some things about pro QBs both in the CFL and the NFL.

The list of QBs who had DEMANDED better OL or a specific OL in both the CFL and the NFL is likely a good, long one.

Free agent QBs make decisions on where they will sign based on the OL on that team or the promises made of improvements. If the QB is getting killed on sacks if you think they suck it up and say nothing to the coach, you are dreaming. Some might say little and others will be very vocal if they are in the calibre of the tier 1 QBs.

Some players deal very well with being in and out of the line up and it doesn't impact their performance.
Other players will have a huge drop off in performance if they play this week and sit the next. It depends on the person, his personality and how much his ego is in play. They are not all like Buck Pierce or Jarius Jackson. That doesn't make them bad, it is just how they are.

I suspect a player like Charles Roberts MUST play and must get lots of touches on the ball or his play will suffer and he might not be a nice guy to have in the locker room when that happens. He strikes me a bit high maintenance that way. Others might just say they are unhappy to a friend and say nothing to others or let it show.

Moving players in and out is unsettling to the guys who play with them. The OL for example in BC just want to know which starter to mentally prep for rather than have it sprung on them 3 hours before kick off. Same as who is playing beside them if they are DBs or OL or DL.

It can be unsettling to players when guys sit who performed well (Smart) and guys play who played poorly (Skillern). It mixes the performance message up. Yes, it strikes a bit of fear that you don't want to be that guy the coach targets and once he locks onto you its downhill until you are gone. But it also lets some get complacent if they know the coach has only eyes for some guy's errors and poor play, and not for you.

Players play best when they are not in fear of losing their jobs. That doesn't mean you can or should go 0 out of 6 and get away with it- it just means that they play best when they know if they play hard at a high level, they won't lose their job next week. Some errors will be made but the issue is whether they are critical errors and if they keep getting repeated.

[PigSkin_53]

O'Neil Wilson, who has had three failed CFL bids, will effectively take Hill's spot as the fifth receiver, so there's room for some debate. Wilson, of course, is a Canadian, and therefore gives the Lions a bit of wiggle room.
And don't even ask what happens if Jason Clermont doesn't play, which remains a possibility given the fact he did not practice Tuesday.

Perhaps the real question we should be asking ourselves is why Wally has become such a bad judge of character this season cutting Adam Nicholson to show why we could surely use his talents in our receiving copes now for the lack of Jason Claremont, instead of having to play the desperate hand of picking up O’Neil Wilson after being cut from three different teams this year?

[cromartie]

Having three very good backs/returners going in to the last third of the season not only gives us good depth, but also allows us to bring in new packages every week, and keeps defences guessing. The ability to have both CR and SL in the back field, and then swing one or both out as a reciever will not only be huge for running yards but open up the middle for recievers, and for Buck to run.

Finally, some sense in this thread.

Having too much of a good thing, is a good thing. Am I the only person that's aware of this?

If you need a tough yard, bring in Lumbala.

Not rocket science here, people.

Perhaps the real question we should be asking ourselves is why Wally has become such a bad judge of character this season cutting Adam Nicholson

Um, because Nicholson didn't figure out how to catch a pass until just prior to Saturday night's game?

[Wakesbetterthanyou]

O'Neil Wilson, who has had three failed CFL bids, will effectively take Hill's spot as the fifth receiver, so there's room for some debate. Wilson, of course, is a Canadian, and therefore gives the Lions a bit of wiggle room.
And don't even ask what happens if Jason Clermont doesn't play, which remains a possibility given the fact he did not practice Tuesday.

Perhaps the real question we should be asking ourselves is why Wally has become such a bad judge of character this season cutting Adam Nicholson to show why we could surely use his talents in our receiving copes now for the lack of Jason Claremont, instead of having to play the desperate hand of picking up O’Neil Wilson after being cut from three different teams this year?

three teams in his career big guy, lets not jump the gun here.