Is Benevides losing it?

[zark]

I think you football gurus and experts should stick with the Lions, or is your intention to make the Lions look better by comparing them with the Argo's...stick with what you know ....

[Toppy Vann]

it won't be long until the Argo head coach job is open again... hopefully MB will take it this time.

And take JC with him as his Offensive Coordinator

The area that I have the least confidence in, for this 2009 edition of our Leos, is the coaching staff. I really don't feel confident yet in Benevedes, although I thought he did a good job in the playoff game last year against Calgary. My views on Chapdelaine are well known on Lionbackers.

Dave Ritchie was too often underrated as a defensive coordinator until he was gone. He not only coordinated a defence that was innovative, aggressive, and created so many turnovers but he also coached the defensive backs as well. He was a popular coach with the players when he coached our defence but he could also bite a players head off if he wasn't happy. He was highly respected. Benevedes just doesn't have Ritchie's presence and Mark Washington is a young coach who still has to earn his stripes.

I would have loved to see Mike Roach take over the defense after Ritchie left or a new coordinator brought in. We all know Chap got fired in Edmonton and our best hope was that they would have kept him.

I think there is a growing realization that the problems with our Leos are not just personell problems now. Coaching, scheme, play calling, game planning, in-game adjustments (or lack thereof) are now huge issues for us.

A good example was last game. We didn't adjust to stopping the run when it was obvious that Winnipeg would keep running the football until we did. We didn't adjust with scheme changes or alignment changes and it killed us.

Couldn't agree more... . You leave the door open on Benevides and that too is fair if he can get it together and make this team gel. I like the idea of young Canadian coaches developing as WB has done with him and JC but it can't be taken for granted and performance is important in the job. I guess my criticism of MB is that he had Ritchie there to learn from and it is clear he seems to be wanting to prove himself his own guy with his own style versus doing that but learning something from Coach Ritchie - I know if I had a chance to work alongside a coach like him, I'd be incorporating some of his thinking and his demeanour and style into my coaching style and approach. He seems to be wanting to prove his own ideas.

Even S.A.W. Shut and Win that he coined off season defies common sense when you are coaching men and professionals. Ritchie would surround himself in games with injured guys. I can recall I think it was Jamall Johnson being hurt and while the Lions offence was out he was chatting to other D players. Telling players to shut up is situational. Done that myself if needed to get their attention when as a coach I needed to get immediate and full attention as time was of the essence. The moment the D hit the field Ritchie gave him that look and those guys re-assembled and ready to go to work. It was a way to keep his players learning, use a decoy to send in signals with a couple of guys there while he stood there doing the thinking and not being the show or running around.

Dave Ritchie has what a good coach needs. A strong caring for and belief in his team but like the best coaches he had that edge to him that if you didn't meet his standards and perform, you'd be in trouble. That is not instilling them with fear but maintaining a performance oriented environment. As much as I know Joe Paopao was admired by players he played with and those he coached, I just don't think he conveyed that edge that separates the top ones. WB has that edge but he can use that to gas players at unexpected times, not just on performance. He is not in my mind the best at the edge as he has given some guys free passes and gassed others unexpectedly and before their time.

WB is not the best guy to learn for sideline x and 0 coaching but he is good at overall leadership and delegation to assistants and QB development and WINNING. Now these two key assistants are letting him down! Ritchie was a master and his loss here has been huge. I strongly believe if the Lions gave him the kind of money that goes to associate HC's he'd be here. The risk, it might not develop these new Canadian coaches - something WB believes strongly in and something any sensible fan should believe in as well.

I think it was when Bud Grant's assistant in Minnesota was approached to coach the Bombers (likely pre - Cal Murphy) and he declined the job and basically said it was stupid as he had been out of the CFL for years! His main point though was that the CFL had some great Canadians and they should be hiring them!

Here is some blackboard thinking for the beleaguered Mike B:

Lou Holtz: You cannot win without good athletes, but you can lose with them. That is where coaching can make the difference.

Bud Grant: You go into a game knowing "they" will be there. You don't know how many or in what form "they" will appear. The trick lies in watching for them, recognizing them, and responding to them. They are the breaks that can turn the game around.

Bob Zuppke: Egotism is the anesthetic that deadens the pain of stupidity.

Duffy Daugherty: I was called the best fourth-quarter coach in football. What people didn't understand was that I was not very quick-witted and that it took me three quarters to find out what was going on.

Paul Brown: You can't ask a boy to be something special, if you don't treat him that way.

[Area51]

More concerning than being a great X's and O's coach and more concerning that being able to change up your gameplan when the opponent is exploiting the scheme you came in with, is having control of the players.

Would Ritchie stand for a guy coming to practice late or falling asleep in film? If you don't want to cut him, fine. If you don't want to fine him, ok. But at the very least you've got to call out that behaviour as unacceptable. If not, what message does it send to the rest of the defence?

That to me, more than anything else, is why BC is struggling so badly this season. Everybody needs to be on board. If even one guy starts to slack it needs to be addressed, otherwise it causes a poisioned team.

Sending guys out to pick fights in practice? That's flat out embarassing for a coach to be so petty and obsessed with imposing his ego. The chemistry is so screwed up and has been for pretty much the entire year, that it's an impossibility to make the playoffs without either a major housecleaning of the coaching staff or else a major housecleaning of coaching practices.

[Toppy Vann]

You might be reading that the wrong way. MB would never send a player out to fight but if defensive players get over aggressive in practice with the O going 2/3 and not much hitting, it can lead to a bit of a purse swinging duel and if the team is tight now...it can be a bit of pushing match with others getting involved. MB is a team guy for sure. He'd never do something to create tensions between his D and their O.

He is definitely in need of being a better mid game adjuster if the Bombers is the measuring stick.

[LFITQ]

We all know Chap got fired in Edmonton and our best hope was that they would have kept him.

Le'ts not forget he practically got fired in Calgary too..

[WestCoastJoe]

It seems Wally has become comfortable with coaches that do it his way, coaches who call a conservative game, coaches who do not innovate, coaches whom he has mentored over the years, probably coaches who do not challenge his philosophy, who in fact share his philosophy.

I am wondering if Wally had stronger assistants in his glory years in Calgary. Cortez as OC for sure. And he had Ritchie here as DC. Hufnagel did some work with him in Calgary. Not sure if he was on staff or consulting. Sad to say, it doesn't look like there are any stars in the assistants group here now. If they don't shine, Wally doesn't shine, and the team does not shine.

So the question still gets asked: against Winnipeg especially, and the other teams in general, are our schemes up to the task? Or, as Wally has suggested, is the execution inadequate? Once again, I put it on the schemes. Whether or not the personnel needs improvement, I would suggest that the schemes are inadequate and outdated anyway.

The schemes are passive in nature: protect the ball on O, contain, prevent, and hold the gaps on D. Light on blitzing, light on stunts and slants on D, predictable on O, carved in stone on D. Light on presnap motion on D. No variety in the formations on D. Personnel in the same spots, doing the same things. This is about schemes, not personnel, not execution. No 7 or 8 men on the LOS pre-snap on D. No overload blitzes. Nada. Play it safe. Virtually telling the other team: here is what we are going to do: stop us if you can. Well, now, after all these years, the other teams can stop these schemes which no longer can rely on superior personnel and what used to be leading concepts.

[Blitz]

It seems Wally has become comfortable with coaches that do it his way, coaches who call a conservative game, coaches who do not innovate, coaches whom he has mentored over the years, probably coaches who do not challenge his philosophy, who in fact share his philosophy.

I am wondering if Wally had stronger assistants in his glory years in Calgary. Cortez as OC for sure. And he had Ritchie here as DC. Hufnagel did some work with him in Calgary. Not sure if he was on staff or consulting. Sad to say, it doesn't look like there are any stars in the assistants group here now. If they don't shine, Wally doesn't shine, and the team does not shine.

So the question still gets asked: against Winnipeg especially, and the other teams in general, are our schemes up to the task? Or, as Wally has suggested, is the execution inadequate? Once again, I put it on the schemes. Whether or not the personnel needs improvement, I would suggest that the schemes are inadequate and outdated anyway.

The schemes are passive in nature: protect the ball on O, contain, prevent, and hold the gaps on D. Light on blitzing, light on stunts and slants on D, predictable on O, carved in stone on D. Light on presnap motion on D. No variety in the formations on D. Personnel in the same spots, doing the same things. This is about schemes, not personnel, not execution. No 7 or 8 men on the LOS pre-snap on D. No overload blitzes. Nada. Play it safe. Virtually telling the other team: here is what we are going to do: stop us if you can. Well, now, after all these years, the other teams can stop these schemes which no longer can rely on superior personnel and what used to be leading concepts.

The 'best before date' of our schemes expired seasosn ago......

Our personell was not that inferior to give up the run yardage that we did against Winnipeg. Yes, we had a rookie tackle in there but other teams also have to replace a single injury on the defensive line and not give up that much yardage. You adjust..it's that simple to take care of the weakness. Ritchie would have used run blitzes and would have shut Winnipeg's run game down significantly even if he had to use d12 rookies out there.

[Toppy Vann]

It seems Wally has become comfortable with coaches that do it his way, coaches who call a conservative game, coaches who do not innovate, coaches whom he has mentored over the years, probably coaches who do not challenge his philosophy, who in fact share his philosophy.

I am wondering if Wally had stronger assistants in his glory years in Calgary. Cortez as OC for sure. And he had Ritchie here as DC. Hufnagel did some work with him in Calgary. Not sure if he was on staff or consulting. Sad to say, it doesn't look like there are any stars in the assistants group here now. If they don't shine, Wally doesn't shine, and the team does not shine.

So the question still gets asked: against Winnipeg especially, and the other teams in general, are our schemes up to the task? Or, as Wally has suggested, is the execution inadequate? Once again, I put it on the schemes. Whether or not the personnel needs improvement, I would suggest that the schemes are inadequate and outdated anyway.

The schemes are passive in nature: protect the ball on O, contain, prevent, and hold the gaps on D. Light on blitzing, light on stunts and slants on D, predictable on O, carved in stone on D. Light on presnap motion on D. No variety in the formations on D. Personnel in the same spots, doing the same things. This is about schemes, not personnel, not execution. No 7 or 8 men on the LOS pre-snap on D. No overload blitzes. Nada. Play it safe. Virtually telling the other team: here is what we are going to do: stop us if you can. Well, now, after all these years, the other teams can stop these schemes which no longer can rely on superior personnel and what used to be leading concepts.

I think WB right now has two key guys he supports the most as he wants to develop future HCs'. MB and JC - both due to their age and desires are the guys he knows are the right age and who could descend from him. Kruck- Dorazio were more innovative. I just think that the growth you expect in a coach from year to year is lacking here with both of them lately. MB has promise but JC has had more time and if he were a player, he'd be long gone.

JC calls the plays and from the lap top stealing incident, is essentially the offense game planner. Remember JC had the ONLY copy of everything on the plays, the players, ratings, etc. While WB's goal and intentions are good and admirable and if not for him, there are few others out there who care as he does that Canadian coaches get development opportunities in the CFL or they will be gone and the game will be poorer.

Not every player including Canadian players want to be coaches or have the qualities and instincts to take on that role as coaches no longer must think the game like a player does and they don't enjoy the team camaraderie like a player does. It takes some a long time to stop thinking the game like a player and think like a coach. These guys like MB and JC are few and far between in the CFL. If we want good football, we need good coaches and we should ensure we develop local talent like WB does! He is the most committed of any CFL coach to that. It doesn't mean they can get a free pass on performance though.

Maybe this is the sophomore jinx year for MB as a DC or something like that. MB needs a coach to mentor and work with him - to mentor him on the schemes, variations on themes in games and game coaching demeanor and of course end silly games like how many INTs this practice kind of childish stuff. That kids stuff isn't smart and is not a sustainable coaching practice. What concerns me is that he had the opportunity to soak up so much from Dave Ritchie who was underemployed and likely underpaid as he is truly a HC not DC (although he can do that as we know). He had a chance to work and learn from the best but as the old saying goes, too bad it didn't stick.

The players accept it seems their role in the debacle. I am not sure the coaches learned the lesson in their side of the equation. Of course, if the HC says it is the system then it is also a bad message to his team. However that was so bad, that it might have been one of those rare occasions where in closed doors the DC says, 'I let you down. We didn't adjust. It won't happen again. We are going to solve that by___________.' In every game - win or lose - a coach has as his primary role post-game to seek out and find the lesson that must be learned to ensure they win next game. In football they break down every play but they still need to find the lesson and sometimes it seems WB, MB and JC are failing in that department. It is not just grading players!

[Sidelines]

It was Dave Ritchie's birthday yesterday. All Wally has to do is call and Dave would be there. Going shopping w/ Sharon is getting old. LOL

[Rammer]

It was Dave Ritchie's birthday yesterday. All Wally has to do is call and Dave would be there. Going shopping w/ Sharon is getting old. LOL

Hope that Wally knows that, the next two games could well lay the foundation for it.