Lionbackers.com

I was greatly impressed with how the team fought back; after that first quarter I was thinking "ok, we will get these 2 points back next week but please don't fold like a cheap tent". Of all the good things about this team, what strikes me the most Is the collective belief and self-confidence they sincerely share amongst themselves. Last year ended with a whimper and with so much having improved across the board this year, I would have been heartbroken if the guys capitulated a la Eastern semi-final vs. Montreal.

But they didn't capitulate.

The Manny Show fought hard. BB Gunz fought reaaaalllll hard. Jennings kept his cool and made it seem like just another day in the office. I was really pleased to see Adekolu contribute after getting the start. There was a lot of good to take away.

A couple of head scratchers though...(aside from the obvious non call of the Harris fumble). Is Sinkfield a part of this offence? I only recall one pass thrown his way and that was at the bitter end. I kept waiting on his number to be called based on his increased contribution last game. And I wondered if Rainey was thinking end zone instead of 1st down? Maybe the cutback was available for moving the chains.

CardiacKid wrote:I was greatly impressed with how the team fought back; after that first quarter I was thinking "ok, we will get these 2 points back next week but please don't fold like a cheap tent". Of all the good things about this team, what strikes me the most Is the collective belief and self-confidence they sincerely share amongst themselves. Last year ended with a whimper and with so much having improved across the board this year, I would have been heartbroken if the guys capitulated a la Eastern semi-final vs. Montreal.

But they didn't capitulate.

The Manny Show fought hard. BB Gunz fought reaaaalllll hard. Jennings kept his cool and made it seem like just another day in the office. I was really pleased to see Adekolu contribute after getting the start. There was a lot of good to take away.

A couple of head scratchers though...(aside from the obvious non call of the Harris fumble). Is Sinkfield a part of this offence? I only recall one pass thrown his way and that was at the bitter end. I kept waiting on his number to be called based on his increased contribution last game. And I wondered if Rainey was thinking end zone instead of 1st down? Maybe the cutback was available for moving the chains.

I worried that we would just plug and play Sinkfield into Boldewijn/Moore's spot and that is what we have done. We haven't made any adaptions to use his speed.

Jennings threw to Sinkfield in the first half. He threw a short one to him. Then on his second throw to Sinkfield, the ball bounced off Sinkfield's hands for a Winnipeg interception and run back. Jennings never threw him the football again until the very end of the game.

The third and one run to Rainey, that was stopped by Leggett is a hard play to cut up sharp inside. Its run like a jet sweep, with Rainey running full speed horizontally. It worked wonderfully when he was able to get outside in the first half. Its a bit of an all or nothing type of play.

Quite frankly, I would prefer, on third and one, to have Allen and Rainey as split backs, for that situation, close to the goal line. It was also better to just sneak the football and have more time on the clock to run off. We really didn't want a touchdown that quick anyway, if Rainey had been able to score,

A quick toss to Rainey would allow him to have a better option of burning to the outside or cutting the play back. It would allow him to be more vertical, once he got the football. Lulay could choose to keep it himself, have Allen dive over the top, or pitch to Rainey.

But the play to run, in that situation, with that field position, and with that time remaining was the quarterback sneak behind Steward and Olifioye.

Lions had an opportunity to send a message and silence the fans when Bighill intercepted the pass in the first quarter. Unfortunately, it was negated by an illegal contact on a receiver by Gaitor. Winnipeg graciously accepted the penalty and marched down the field to open the scoring.

Credit to the Lions for coming back from a large deficit, but this is the 3rd straight sub par performance from the defense. You can't expect to consistently win while giving up 30+ points a game.

I was disappointed by the fumble call on Harris, however after some reflection that is sometimes the nature of the game. I must concede that although the team put up a thrilling *almost* comeback, being down so much in the first quarter and relying on a wing and a prayer (or a fumble) to win in the dying seconds shows we were not fully prepared for Winnipeg.

This needs to be a lesson learned and with so much on the line next game for the playoff picture I expect, actually demand, a higher level of preparation and performance next game (especially on D, not pointing any specific fingers). The "unfair" nature of the loss had better light some fires among both players and coaches heading to BC place for this crucial back to back.

A standout game for Jennings, Burnham and Arceneaux, and kudos to Rainey even though he missed that much needed 3rd down conversion he was a key difference maker in it being a close one at all.

Go Lions!

In hindsight Rainey should have cut back and got the first down, not tried to sweep to the outside and go for the TD... However lets not forget a similar play on 3rd and short was our first major and the big momentum shifter in the game.

Winnipeg however was ready for the play call. "Fool me once" well they weren't about to be fooled twice. That's where the game was lost. The Harris fumble seemed like a godsend, but turned out to be a red herring.

Bosco wrote:Credit to the Lions for coming back from a large deficit, but this is the 3rd straight sub par performance from the defense. You can't expect to consistently win while giving up 30+ points a game.

Not to knock Gaitor or Fenner but we are missing Lee and Yell IMO. Their familiarity with their partners in the secondary of course improves the unit overall but also their nose for making "the big play". Lee in particular was very effective at blitzing from his halfback position and Yell is an excellent cover man.

The defensive line seems to making less and less of an impact on the proceedings of late.

Ballistic Bob wrote:How can illegal contact not be am automatic first down. Wally was fuming but we scored anyways. Thnx BB

wally should know this

"Prior to a forward pass being thrown, a Team B player may not:
a.Beyond the five yard zone, create or initiate contact that redirects, restricts, or impedes the Team A receiver in any way. Such contact is "Illegal Contact On A Receiver".

PENALTY: L10 PLS" (Loss of 10 from point of last scrimmage) not an automatic first down. I was very surprised to see Wally confused about it. It was not PI

It's a disappointing loss for the Lions but I still feel some happiness for the Bombers and their long-suffering fans. They pulled out all stops, including an early fake field goal and trick play TD pass to QB Matt Nichols to build an early lead and then had enough gas in the tank to hang on for victory.

The Lions shouldn't have been close. Besides surrendering the TD on two trick plays, they lost the turnover battle 3-0, as Winnipeg scored 10 points off two interceptions and then stopped the Lions on a third-and-one gamble from the Winnipeg five-yard line with less than a minute left in the game for the turnover that ultimately decided the game.

The Bombers also game planned well. The Lions sent five pass rushers on almost every play of the opening Bomber series, rushing Purifoy off the edge, but Nichols capitalized by dumping the ball into holes underneath to march the Bombers down the field. Compounding the defensive problems, the Lions dropped Adam Bighill 20 or 30 yards into deep zone coverage, leaving Solomon Elimimian alone in the middle to try to stop a fired-up Andrew Harris. Elimimian had too much ground to cover by himself and Harris had lots of success early as the Bombers built a 24-3 lead. Elimimian finished with only five defensive tackles, his lowest output in seven games.

Fortunately for the Lions, Mark Washington changed his defensive approach after the early Bomber success, sending only three or four pass rushers on most plays, eventually moving Bighill up into his usual linebacker spot and playing a lot more man coverage in behind. The Lions kept the Bomber offence in check most of the way after that, holding them to 13 points in the final 38 minutes.

As the B.C. defence tightened up, the offence went to work. Chris Rainey give the Lions momentum with a 56-yard touchdown run on third and one in the second quarter to make the score 24-10. Unfortunately, it's the same play the Lions often use in short-yardage situations when they don't think they can gain a yard up the middle. They tried it again on the fateful third-down gamble in the final minute of the game and Winnipeg's Maurice Leggett recognized the formation and play call and stopped Rainey for a loss, although Rainey seemed to have room to pick up the first down if he had cut upfield instead of trying to bounce it to the outside, as Wally Buono noted on the postgame show on TSN 1040.

Rainey had a big day. Besides his touchdown run, he had 238 return yards, including two long returns into Winnipeg territory that set up a field goal and touchdown, so he directly or indirectly accounted for 17 of B.C.'s 35 points.

Jonathon Jennings, Manny Arceneaux and Bryan Burnham accounted for most of the offensive yardage. Jennings passed for a whopping 422 yards, with Burnham (9 for 208) and Arceneaux (10 for 150) accounting for 19 of Jennings' 28 pass completions and 358 of his 422 yards. No one stepped up for the injured Shawn Gore to take the pressure of the big two receivers. Terrell Sinkfield looked good last week against Ottawa but had a forgettable day in Winnipeg, making just two catches for 14 yards and deflecting another pass into the hands of Winnipeg's TJ Heath for an interception that set up a Bomber field goal to make the score 24-3.

Kudos to the Lions for digging themselves out of a hole and almost completing the comeback. This offence has firepower and the team doesn't give up. The pressure will be on next week to win at home by at least three points to claim the tiebreaker against Winnipeg and improve their chances of a home playoff game. They can focus on having a better start to the game and not putting themselves in such a hole.

The Bombers also game planned well. The Lions sent five pass rushers on almost every play of the opening Bomber series, rushing Purifoy off the edge, but Nichols capitalized by dumping the ball into holes underneath to march the Bombers down the field. Compounding the defensive problems, the Lions dropped Adam Bighill 20 or 30 yards into deep zone coverage, leaving Solomon Elimimian alone in the middle to try to stop a fired-up Andrew Harris. Elimimian had too much ground to cover by himself and Harris had lots of success early as the Bombers built a 24-3 lead. Elimimian finished with only five defensive tackles, his lowest output in seven games. B.C. FAN

I don't know what Mark Washington's thinking is! Against Ottawa it looked like he was just desperate using Bighill as a safety for 2/3 of the season last year, before abandoning it, because it didn't work.

But using Bighill again as a safety, as he did early in this game, against Winnipeg makes no sense. The Bombers are a possession style passing offence. They throw a lot of high percentage passes to their receivers, like the screen game, and they like to dump to the tailback (Harris) in the flat. They also like to run the football. A four man pass rush and a Cover 1 made sense. Having Purifoy cover the flat on the wide side made sense. Having two linebackers helping out underneath made sense for pass defense and run defence.

In terms of the razzle/dazzle touchdown throw to Nichols. O'Shea said, after the game:

They’re football plays. They’re designed because the coordinators see something that they can take advantage of and they’re practiced and executed, and if they’re executed then it results in a good looking play.”

The problem is that our offence does not look to take advantage of anything. Its just 'here we are, this is what we do' and hope that Jennings and Company can play lights out.

"The defender was engaged with the blocker" (Leggett) said backup quarterback Travis Lulay, who gave the ball to Rainey on the critical play.“When a defender is engaged, the ball carrier has a pretty good chance to run around him. The defender just caught Chris by flailing his body. And he timed it just right. He got in Chris’s way. The play was designed to get a handful of yards.”
Instead, Rainey lost a yard. Ball game.

They tried to double team me.” said Leggett. “And I just did a spin move and tripped him up.”
“Makes basically the play of the game.” said head coach Mike O’Shea. “Gosh, that’s an unbelievable football play.”
Leggett had been ruled out of the game in the third quarter after a suspected knee injury but convinced the team to let him go back in the game

The "failure of the sweep left Leo fans to weep" the headline says. The play "swept" us into the "dust bin".

I don't have a problem with the play. It worked perfectly earlier in the game. But I had a problem with the play at that point in time for a number of reasons 1) we had run the play so successfully earlier that we had to know that Winnipeg would be more prepared to defend it 2) the preferred play should be the quarterback sneak because, run successfully it would give us a first down and not a touchdown, allowing us to run more time off the clock and 3) the quarterback sneak is the highest percentage play to run, with the game on the line.

Yes Leggett made a great play, coming off Allen's block, spinning off the block, throwing himself into the path of Rainey, stopping him short on third-and-short. "Gosh, that’s an unbelievable football play. I’m so proud of him.” said O'Shea after the game.

Yes, Lulay was stopped short earlier in the game on a second and one, when he tried to sneak it behind Husband, with a nose tackle over Husband. But on third and one, Lulay got lots of yardage running behind Steward and Oliofioye.

That was the play to run. The play should have been Lulay sneaking the fooball behind 330 pound plus Steward and 325 pound Olifioye.

Allen had only gained a yard on the previous play, as we ran him to the right side of our offence, even though the only times we had been a bit successful with our running game with Allen, after the first quarter, was running to the left side of our offence.

Earlier in the game, down inside the Bombers 5 yard line, we ran the misdirection motion play to Arseneaux that we scored a touchdown on last game. It was an excellent red zone play against Ottawa, because we had not run the play before. But the Bombers had looked at tape, saw Arseneaux go in motion inside and when he want back out to the flat they were waiting for him. Jennings had to pull the football down and lose a yard. The play was predictable.

Another play call that left me stunned, was running a draw play to Allen, in the second half, on second and 17 . Allen was stopped for a 5 yard loss. Jennings is more than capable of making a 20 yard throw for a completion. He has done it many, many times over the last two games. Jennings completed a first and 20 play later in the game to Iannuzzi (22 yds.) for a first down. It was so conservative a play call and basically gave up on trying to get a first dow

Allen ran for 8 yds. on his first rush of the game. His first half rushes went for 2 yds, 5 yds. 3 yds. 3yds. and a 3 yd. touchdown.

Down by 4 points to start the second half, we only rushed Allen once in the third quarter and the play went for -1 yard.

In the 4th quarter, Allen had a run of 7 yds., -5 yds., (draw play) and 1 yard (on the second and 2, before the third and one sweep to Rainey). Allen had a very good game against Ottawa. Quite frankly, our run blocking was not good and part of the problem was that we only ran the inside zone read this game, wheras against Ottawa we ran three different running plays.

I don't see our coaching as being good enough, on both sides of the football. Our offence basically is so successful because of Jennings throws and the play of Burnham, Arseneaux, and Gore (when he is not injured), as well as Rainey. We don't fool anyone. We're predictable. Jennings makes great throws, sometimes into double coverage and Burnham and Arseneaux make great plays on the football.

We signed a speed receiver in Sinkfield and we don't throw to him deep (except once) and we don't use him on crossing patterns to utilize his speed. I'm watching the Bombers use Dressler on jet sweeps aginat us and we haven't used Sinkfield for a jet sweep once or lined him up in the backfield with Allen and utilized Sinkfield in the flat.

This game was the first time all season that we have used our tailback out of the backfield very much in the passing game. But it was not as successful as it should have been, with the Bombers blitzing a linebacker on most plays. All we had to do was have Arseneaux run a short cross or very shallow dig pattern to rub the remaining linebacker and our tailback would have been free on the boundary side. But we didn't do it and the tailback was tackled.

Khari Jones has such little imagination, its scary. Basically our offence is one running play (the zone read) and a simple passing attack that relies on Jennings and our receivers to make great plays constantly.

Watching the Bombers give Nichols such great play action rollouts and designing plays to hit Harris in the flat (Harris was the Bombers second leading receiver in the game, after Dressler) was frustrating. We kept Jennings in the pocket all game, even though we knew the Bombers would bring their linebackers on inside blitzes and would be playing man press coverage. They were very vulnerable against some rollout plays.

Our rushing attack gets a lot of accolades but, going into this game, Johnson/Allen had rushed for less yards than Harris/Flanders. Jennings runs get included in our rushing stats.

On defense, we have played 14 games now and we still don't have an International rotational defensive end that can get the job done. Darius Allen was invisible on defense again. Hudson had one sack with his opportunity. This position is supposed to be a pass rushing specialist. Other teams have brought in NFL cuts and are playing them. We would be better off playing Menard as our rotational defensive end than Allen/Hudson.

Bazzie is tired and his pass rush has dropped off. He gets double teamed, they chip him, they play action to his side, they do everything to negate him because they know he is our only real threat as a pass rusher.

Secondly, we have no inside pass rush against pocket passing spread quarterbacks. Westerman is the only defensive tackle that can get any inside rush. Brooks has 0 sacks. We really should have been using a second International tackle, if we could not find an NFL cut defensive end - we should play either Bryant Turner Jr. or Uko rather than wasting the spot with Allen or Hudson.

Our defensive play is continuing to slide. The problem is not just playing rookies Gaitor (who is a good defensive back) and Fenner. Stewart, Edem, and Purifoy are also not playing well. Purifoy's play has dropped off in Washington's scheme. Phillips is the only defensive back who is showing good cover skills within our scheme.

A telling stat is that our defence is tied for last place with the Riders in interceptions.

Our field goal cover team has been horrible all season yet we have not corrected it. We rank 8th in the CFL in kickoff coverage.

We were outcoached in this game. Our offence made plays. That was the only thing that brought us back. It was all Jennings, Burnham, and Arseneaux overcoming the limitations of our offensive playbook.

The Bombers can smell second place. They will really play us really tough next Friday night.

maxlion wrote:Lots of holes in the Lions tonight, but this game came down to a blown call by the officials. That was the difference between a win and loss. Close and exciting game otherwise.

These were my comments after last year's Thanksgiving game against the Bombers. Same narrative this year. Oh well.

This has been one of the most exciting teams we've seen in a long time in BC. We can beat Winnipeg next week, no doubt in my mind.

maxlion wrote:

maxlion wrote:Lots of holes in the Lions tonight, but this game came down to a blown call by the officials. That was the difference between a win and loss. Close and exciting game otherwise.

These were my comments after last year's Thanksgiving game against the Bombers. Same narrative this year. Oh well.

This has been one of the most exciting teams we've seen in a long time in BC. We can beat Winnipeg next week, no doubt in my mind.

Now if the lions can figure out how to beat the Command Centre, that would be an accomplishment.

maxlion wrote:

maxlion wrote:Lots of holes in the Lions tonight, but this game came down to a blown call by the officials. That was the difference between a win and loss. Close and exciting game otherwise.

These were my comments after last year's Thanksgiving game against the Bombers. Same narrative this year. Oh well.

This has been one of the most exciting teams we've seen in a long time in BC. We can beat Winnipeg next week, no doubt in my mind.

Interesting that it was the same story line as your comments about the game last season maxlion.

This is an exciting team. Not exciting schemes but a very exciting team...due to players like Jennings, Burnham, Arseneaux, Rainey. Quite frankly, this is the most exciting since the Cardiac Kids (and the sensational throws by Jennings and sensational catches by Arseneaux and Burnham, and the exciting returns by Rainey are much more impressive)

Our Leos defensive players have comments about the 'excellent game plan' by the Bombers. We need to come up with an excellent game plan against the Bombers next week. Its our turn.

"The CFL also needs to change its challenge rules. A coach should be able to challenge pass interference or defensive holding on a receiver who has been targeted. But too often a defense makes an interception and the opposition coach challenges that a receiver far removed from the play has touched. Its bogus and spoils the game.

Another situation is when a team needs a first down and has gone two and out, they will challenge that a receiver, who is far removed from the play, has been touched by a defender. Take those type of calls out of the coaches ability to challenge.

We need to get back to some common sense."

Exactly.

Blitz wrote:

DanoT wrote:We can't blame the refs for the missed call on Harris' fumble but we sure can blame the Command Centre for deciding to award the game to the Bombers by refusing to overrule the call.

We should not have been in that position. Leone's missed 35 yard field goal (3 points), losing 3 yards on offence and having to settle for a field goal inside the Winnipeg 5 yard line in the first half (potential 4 points) Wally not going for 3rd and one at the end of the first half (potential 4 points) and not being able to convert on 2nd and 2 and third and one at the end of the game (lost potential 7 points).

The game was there for us to win, even with the atrocious first half performance by our defense, who also didn't come through in the 4th quarter.

Still, it was a fumble, that everyone can see on television, so how the Command Center could get it wrong, is shocking (or they chose to get it wrong and set up next week's game).

CFL officiating was notoriously bad for decades. I really think its improved, in terms of the quality of the calls. However, there are just far too many borderline calls. That increases the error rate.

Holding, hands to the face, etc. can't be borderline and then called. The NFL officials doesn't make those kind of calls. Iannuzzi's offensive pass interference, Steward's hands to the face (his arm was knocked up by the Bomber pass rusher) and the Lubala hold on the punt return, were very borderline at best.

If the penalty is not clear cut, it shouldn't be called.

The CFL also needs to change its challenge rules. A coach should be able to challenge pass interference or defensive holding on a receiver who has been targeted. But too often a defense makes an interception and the opposition coach challenges that a receiver far removed from the play has touched. Its bogus and spoils the game.

Another situation is when a team needs a first down and has gone two and out, they will challenge that a receiver, who is far removed from the play, has been touched by a defender. Take those type of calls out of the coaches ability to challenge.

We need to get back to some common sense.

I agree that the league needs to get rid of the ticky tack plays. It just leads to too many calls. I am of the belief of let them play football. I don't mind challenges as I like to have the call right, but it's clear that allowing coaches to challenge PI and illegal contact is a bad idea now. Time to scrap it.