Home opener: Lions vs. Elks June 17, 2023

[Toppy Vann]

The officials made a couple of very iffy calls on Peters' interception and the fumble recovery on 3rd down.

They never did show a replay of the Peters pick in the stadium after it was known the DPI call was made so I never really had an opportunity to make my own judgement. It looked to me like Peters was merely going for the interception which he has a right to and the two collided while both were going for the ball. But that was based on my one time live look. As fans we usually pay attention only at the contact when the ball arrives. Sometimes the DPI call is based on something that happened earlier in the process while the ball is in the air.

Peters lobbied Campbell hard to challenge it. When the Lions defence finally got off the field at the end of Edmonton's possession he was still ticked off having an animated conversation with Campbell down on the sidelines. Maybe at a point later in the game Campbell might have challenged the same play. However a coach has to be 100% confident of winning the challenge when he's using it on the very first play of the game. Win it great. Losing it could come back to haunt you at a key point later in the game when you don't have 59+ minutes left to overcome it.

LOL , When Walt67 posted my post on the run game, I quickly spotted a sentence I hadn't completed that reads:

The wave Almo led to a Lions penalty which was insane as the home team fans were making the noise.

I meant to say the "The wave Almo mentioned led...." not to suggest Almo was there leading the wave lol. I just left out the word MENTIONED...lol

------

I thought Rick Campbell should not have challenged what they thought was a fumble for a Lions TD as clearly no Elk who was there by the pile moved a finger or a foot as they all seemed to be sure it was not a fumble. That challenge for me even after seeing it on the replays made no sense.

However, the call on Garry Peter's for PI on the TV wasn't conclusive either but it sure didn't look like PI at all. Not sure why the Lions didn't challenge that one.

At first I thought the HC might not have had a good look at it either or it was too early in the game for him to want to challenge.
Maybe he was right as the TV coverage doesn't show much either so maybe he did the right thing then. But challenging the fumble call was crazy.

[Toppy Vann]

I thought Vernon Adams looks ready to have a good season with a big test not just for him but the team this week vs. the Bombers. To beat the Bombers it'll take some creativity and getting Mizzell involved or it'll be tough for Adams with the Bombers DL in his face.

As far as the Lions not seeing the 3 down Elks before, I thought an empty backfield was the reason the Elks felt they didn't need to rush 4. Just keeping a back in the backfield on play/action should have been the Lions response. Leave 3 and the Lions could run or pass.

Bombers will be tough in all facets so they'll be hard to unseat at the top of the Western conference for the WDF at home. But lots of games to decide all that including just making the playoffs.

After yesterday's Argo decimation of the Ticats, Argos are looking pretty solid in all facets for their first game notwithstanding the horrible day BLM had at QB for the Ticats. TSN said that off-season their HC had Chad Kelly watching the first 3 years of BLM with the Stamps so he could see how to play QB in the CFL. Kelly looked good other than the collective let down up 22-6.

Tommy Condell might be topping the charts of CFL OC's for predictability. All these guys who want to show a run up the middle as their run game aren't matches for the creative being shown by others in the CFL who have more than one way or one person to run.

[Robbie]

While it's good to start of the season on the right foot, the team should definitely get too overconfident.

The shutout win at the home opener this season reminds me of the seasons for 1987 and 1988 in there was uncertainty given all the new faces on the roster.

1987: Lions begin the season without Mervyn Fernandez and have a new shutout win 44-1 over Saskatchewan and after while, the team appeared to be invincible but after a choke and a 3-game losing streak which costed Don Matthews his job, Lions appear invincible again sandwiching the regular season with the same team with a 34-14 win over Saskatchewan but two weeks later in the WDF the Lions get too overconfident and lose 31-7 to Edmonton.

1988: With lots of new faces an an entire new roster led by new QB Matt Dunigan, the Lions start off with a new shutout win over Winnipeg 36-3 and end off the season with another blowout win 45-24 over Winnipeg again. Unfortunately three weeks later the Lions no longer have that dominant form.

[Hambone]

Looking like there will be a change at receiver vs Winnipeg. Whitehead is listed as a full participant at today's practice while Rhymes was listed as DNP. With only one more practice before they hop the plane to Winnipeg on Wednesday it's safe to say Rhymes won't be on it and will be replaced on the roster by Whitehead. It'll be interesting to see who lines up in Rhymes slot position. I was wondering if they might also draw 6'4 Josh Pearson in as he offers similar size to Rhymes. However I didn't realize Eberhardt was 6'2. I thought he was more the like 5'10.

[B.C.FAN]

Looking like there will be a change at receiver vs Winnipeg. Whitehead is listed as a full participant at today's practice while Rhymes was listed as DNP. With only one more practice before they hop the plane to Winnipeg on Wednesday it's safe to say Rhymes won't be on it and will be replaced on the roster by Whitehead. It'll be interesting to see who lines up in Rhymes slot position. I was wondering if they might also draw 6'4 Josh Pearson in as he offers similar size to Rhymes. However I didn't realize Eberhardt was 6'2. I thought he was more the like 5'10.

Eberhardt backed up Rhymes throughout training camp and preseason, and did well at the position, so he'd be the natural replacement if Rhymes can't go this week.

[Hambone]

Eberhardt backed up Rhymes throughout training camp and preseason, and did well at the position, so he'd be the natural replacement if Rhymes can't go this week.

Guess I wasn't paying enough attention.......again. Yes that would make for the right fit for Thursday.

I'd noticed Daughtry excelling in training camp filling in for Hatcher in Burnham's old spot. Unfortunately he failed to replicate his practice performance during preseason action. Also was watching Robinson for the global and size curiosity and McInnis as a significant FA signing. That kind of put Eberhardt in the backburner for me.

[B.C.FAN]

Eberhardt backed up Rhymes throughout training camp and preseason, and did well at the position, so he'd be the natural replacement if Rhymes can't go this week.

Guess I wasn't paying enough attention.......again. Yes that would make for the right fit for Thursday.

I'd noticed Daughtry excelling in training camp filling in for Hatcher in Burnham's old spot. Unfortunately he failed to replicate his practice performance during preseason action. Also was watching Robinson for the global and size curiosity and McInnis as a significant FA signing. That kind of put Eberhardt in the backburner for me.

Daughtry and McInnis got a lot of first-team reps and targets in training camp at Keon Hatcher’s boundary slot position. McInnis stood out more, and has excelled at the position in the regular season. Eberhardt didn’t get many quality reps as Rhymes’ backup in camp but he consistently made tough catches. Robinson also made huge progress in camp and preseason as Cottoy’s backup. The Lions have great depth at receiver.

[DanoT]

Given McInnes' 6' 5" frame and 210lbs, National status, and how well he has done at WR this season, I can only wonder why the Riders let him go to free agency.

[Hambone]

Given McInnes' 6' 5" frame and 210lbs, National status, and how well he has done at WR this season, I can only wonder why the Riders let him go to free agency.

I think it was a case of him not living up to expectations due to inconsistency and the Riders looking more favourably at other big NAT receivers. He was chosen ranked #3 and take 6th overall in the 2019 CFL Draft. Since he was taken as the top receiver in that draft the Riders took Brayden Lenius (6'5 230) 16th in that same Draft, Kian Schaffer-Baker (6'4 195) 30th in the 2020 Draft and Samuel Emilus (6'1 200) 7th in the 2022 Draft.

[David]

From Farhan today. Hosed by the refs again…

[media] [/media]


DH

[DanoT]

There are not enough challenges available to a coach to spend one early in a game as the team has almost a whole game to recover from a wrong call by the refs, especially when there may not be enough film evidence to overturn, UNLESS a scoring play is involved. Hence, no challenge on the Peters' 1st play of the game interception, and a flag thrown on the fumble recovery/touchdown play (forward progress of the ball carrier did seem to be stopped, so correct call by the refs).

[Toppy Vann]

The challenge used too early can be questioned by fans and media, yet this was so clear-cut an error by the ref making the call. Granted it was the first minute of the game. If the Elks had gone on to score and won the game with that TD, we might be jumping on the HC for not challenging a clearcut case of no PI.

As the play was still in the Elks half and they got no points then or at any time, it's hardly an issue other than for the player wanting his INT recognized.

Farhan says Campbell didn't challenge as there was no contact.

Did it matter that Campbell had to be precise as to what he's challenging here such that the Command Centre wouldn't reverse the call?
In this case, just say he's challenging that his player didn't interfere. He'd be correct.

An exception occurs when a coach challenges Defensive Pass Interference, Offensive Pass Interference or Illegal Interference - Blocking Downfield by an eligible pass receiver. When this happens the Command Centre will look at the players and actions identified by the coach to determine which of the three fouls, if any, is the correct ruling.

[Hambone]

There are not enough challenges available to a coach to spend one early in a game as the team has almost a whole game to recover from a wrong call by the refs, especially when there may not be enough film evidence to overturn, UNLESS a scoring play is involved. Hence, no challenge on the Peters' 1st play of the game interception, and a flag thrown on the fumble recovery/touchdown play (forward progress of the ball carrier did seem to be stopped, so correct call by the refs).

I'm OK with the number of challenges as they are. If the challenge is successful the coach gets a second one. Remember when the challenges first came in? If I recall they got two and could earn a third which led coaches all too often going on fishing expeditions. They could go fishing with their first knowing they still had one left. Today those fishing expeditions have been all but eliminated unless it's a desperation challenge late in the game when the coach still has his challenge flag burning a hole in his back pocket and a timeout remaining. Coaches have to be much more judicious in using a challenge. The reasoning for cutting back on the number of challenges was two fold. One reason was to get rid of the fishing expeditions. The second was to help reduce the length of time it was taking to play a game as that was becoming a major criticism of the CFL. The potential of a combined 6 challenges could add 15 to 30 minutes to a game vs one where no challenges were made.