Game Day Thread, Lions @ Riders, July 14, 2012

[B.C.FAN]

Officiating had absolutely nothing to do with this game. Complaining about officiating just diverts attention from where it belongs, on the B.C. special teams. They were terrible.

[WestCoastJoe]

It is a God given right for football fans to complain about the reffing. LOL

Let the people speak.

It looks terrible on the stat sheet. Especially in a close game.

Personally I do not have any doubts about the integrity of the refs, but I do feel the atmosphere can influence them. Even subconsciously. And I am not blaming the refs for the loss. I am just saying let the people complain.

[BCBenny5]

I think once our Oline gets healthy Harris will put together some big runs, this guy is a gamer, love his tenacity. but the defence more importantly secondary looks pretty passive barring a few exceptions. We need to pick up on that, Muamba wasn't as bad at safety but needs some inspiration. I am confused as to why we aren't slotting the leading tackler(?) from the CFL last year in Shell in the starting line-up. I know we have a wealth of riches back there but seems to me we need someone who knows how to hit and he is one of them.

Figured this game would be close, also figured it may tilt in the Riders favor, they are hungrier, working together as a team better. We will be better next week, Mike will not let this one go too easily.

[Rammer]

Officiating had absolutely nothing to do with this game. Complaining about officiating just diverts attention from where it belongs, on the B.C. special teams. They were terrible.

Absolutely the Lions ST was the kicker (pun intended) to the final result in the game. However, while missed calls go on, I don't understand how the Riders ended up with one hold through the game, when the point of attack holds weren't and are a huge influence on the game, almost as much as the ST play. We have been complaining about the ST since day one, it hasn't changed, and I don't see that changing very soon. Lions need some arrows that have the desire to stick their head in the dirty areas. We may be too soft a team, which is also reflective on our secondary.

[BCfanInDIXIE]

We had a nice gathering of the Bama BC Fan Club for today's game. 6 in attendance. Must say we were all dissapointed, but the general consensus was this loss will be good for the team in the long run.

[TheLionKing]

Jesus, you people and the refs. Just stop it already.
.

No I fricken won't . They were absolutely terrible and they cost us. Clip on the FG return. Many many missed calls.

That was an obvious clip at the point of attack.

[BCBenny5]

Never noticed the clip, very unfortunate, but we had many more problems than just that. Not sure we would have won the game with fewer calls, we were a bit off all game.

[Rammer]

Never noticed the clip, very unfortunate, but we had many more problems than just that. Not sure we would have won the game with fewer calls, we were a bit off all game.

The clip could have been called on that return, IIRC Suitor and Cuthbert both discussed it as a possible clip as well.

[cromartie]

I think once our Oline gets healthy Harris will put together some big runs, this guy is a gamer, love his tenacity. but the defence more importantly secondary looks pretty passive barring a few exceptions. We need to pick up on that, Muamba wasn't as bad at safety but needs some inspiration. I am confused as to why we aren't slotting the leading tackler(?) from the CFL last year in Shell in the starting line-up. I know we have a wealth of riches back there but seems to me we need someone who knows how to hit and he is one of them.

Figured this game would be close, also figured it may tilt in the Riders favor, they are hungrier, working together as a team better. We will be better next week, Mike will not let this one go too easily.

Does the secondary look passive?

I'm playing devils advocate in asking this question, because I can take or leave either answer, and I'll bring up a couple of things in opposition to that statement:

In the second half of last week's game, you lost Phillips due to injury, Parker due to injury and McKenzie due to injury. And if you didn't lose them, they were certainly hobbled.

This week, the Riders game plan was essentially, max protect against the Lions front four and let DD pretend he's Danny McManus (quick release to first read).

Now, when that happens, historically, Lions defenses, whether under Benny, Stubler or Ritchie, had trouble defending it between the 20s. However, once that type of offense reaches the red zone, it tends to stall, because there is no longer enough field to work with, and the back eight can then play man or a tighter zone. The end result, as is often the case, are long drives that end in field goal attempts, which was the case today.

[TheLionKing]

The Riders' game plan appeared to be conservative, no turnovers and depend on the defence.

[B.C.FAN]

Does the secondary look passive?

I'm playing devils advocate in asking this question, because I can take or leave either answer, and I'll bring up a couple of things in opposition to that statement:

In the second half of last week's game, you lost Phillips due to injury, Parker due to injury and McKenzie due to injury. And if you didn't lose them, they were certainly hobbled.

This week, the Riders game plan was essentially, max protect against the Lions front four and let DD pretend he's Danny McManus (quick release to first read).

Now, when that happens, historically, Lions defenses, whether under Benny, Stubler or Ritchie, had trouble defending it between the 20s. However, once that type of offense reaches the red zone, it tends to stall, because there is no longer enough field to work with, and the back eight can then play man or a tighter zone. The end result, as is often the case, are long drives that end in field goal attempts, which was the case today.

Good breakdown. The Rider coaching staff deserves a lot of credit for the game plan but it was up to Durant to execute it and he did a great job. The Lions didn't adjust. They sat in zone and rushed four on first down throughout the game. When they blitzed off the edge, the Riders negated it by using their running backs, making quick throws or finding open space in the middle.

B.C.'s offence still outperformed the Riders but Durant managed the game and preserved the lead that the Rider special teams gave him.

[BCBenny5]

Yes we did suffer some unfortunate injuries in the secondary. However given that we had a surplus of talent ready to play in the secondary is just seems to me we are still a very aggressive secondary but not necessarily a smart one. I think we played pretty heavy zone defence today and gave up more than we should have, granted the Riders have some amazing receivers. We need to let our playmakers play man coverage and make some plays, having all stars in the backfield playing zone doesn't always make a lot of sense to me given the proficiency of the oppositions receivers. You are right cromartie I may have generalized my statement a little but you can't deny the dysfunction.

[cromartie]

However given that we had a surplus of talent ready to play in the secondary is just seems to me we are still a very aggressive secondary but not necessarily a smart one. I think we played pretty heavy zone defence today and gave up more than we should have, granted the Riders have some amazing receivers. We need to let our playmakers play man coverage and make some plays, having all stars in the backfield playing zone doesn't always make a lot of sense to me given the proficiency of the oppositions receivers.

B.C.'s offence still outperformed the Riders but Durant managed the game and preserved the lead that the Rider special teams gave him.

But the defense gave up only one major, correct? And that was off a short field after a turnover. The dysfunctional secondary gave up all of 172 yards passing against some amazing receivers.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, the Riders employed an offensive game plan similar to one Hamilton did with Danny Mac for years. Short drops, max protect, throw to the first read. This effectively, today at least, negated the Lions pass rush. It enabled the Riders to move the ball between the 20s fairly effectively but it's a low risk, low reward offensive game plan that nets a lot of FGs and very few TDs. Which is more or less what happened unless the Riders were given a short field. This is how these types of games typically play out, regardless of who's calling the plays defensively.

Certainly there are issues defensively, but I'm not sure that it can all be attributed to soft coverage and too little man vs. too much zone.

[BCBenny5]

But the defense gave up only one major, correct? And that was off a short field after a turnover. The dysfunctional secondary gave up all of 172 yards passing against some amazing receivers.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, the Riders employed an offensive game plan similar to one Hamilton did with Danny Mac for years. Short drops, max protect, throw to the first read. This effectively, today at least, negated the Lions pass rush. It enabled the Riders to move the ball between the 20s fairly effectively but it's a low risk, low reward offensive game plan that nets a lot of FGs and very few TDs. Which is more or less what happened unless the Riders were given a short field. This is how these types of games typically play out, regardless of who's calling the plays defensively.

Certainly there are issues defensively, but I'm not sure that it can all be attributed to soft coverage and too little man vs. too much zone.

You are right cromartie the flaws of the defence seem to fall on the secondary even though they aren't the only problem. I suppose my frustration lies in the lack of a big play this game, but yes we need to improve in all aspects. Our front 7 who are usually a menace also were neutralized this game, that also needs to be looked at. Kudos to the Riders for excellent pass protection.