Lionbackers.com

SammyGreene wrote:
Front four has been very quiet the past couple of games. For the first time this season, I'm noticing the loss of McKay-Loescher who would keep the starters fresh and we wouldn't miss a beat. Foley is nowhere near his level, at least as of yet, despite a promising pre-season.

Astute of you to notice the D-line hasn't brought any heat in a while, but how did you come to the conclusion that Foley is nowhere near the Chief's level? It's tough to have any impact when you don't get on the field.

I feel a little better of this loss than the Rider loss, I guess, as there were definite opportunities to win the game especially if McCallum had made one more field goal and Buck hits receivers on a few of those bombs etc. I will wait until the starters return and then make a judgement after that. The effort was there last night but obviously lack of execution in areas including special teams which were a problem last night after being a strength early in the season.

On a side note this was my first game in Vancouver and regardless of the result it was a great time and I was impressed by the crowd and all the pregame activities before the game. Edmonton does not have the pregame street party or tailgating so it was new for Rachael and I!!! By the way, Rachael was happy with the result of the game at least It was nice meeting Pinkfreud, Canuck 4 life, Shelion, D, Lionheart, Gerry, Bosco, OS99, rick of sports n' stuff, pacific,AC/DCrocks etc. (sorry if I missed people as it was a quick visit!!) and I hope to see them and more again for future games

Last I would like to give a special thanks to Ballistic Bob for showing us around Vancouver before the game and both Bob and smphantom for getting Rachael and I liquored up before the game!! :lol: :lol:

I typed up something yesterday morning and it disappeared on me somehow so here it goes again.

The offence seemed to go so good for that first part of the game both from a play calling perspective and execution which was key. Then somehow when the Bombers shifted from man to man (so it seemed to me) the Lions either seemed to lose confidence from play calling to execution. It seemed as if the confidence tonic administered pre -game had all of a sudden worn off of the OC play calling and to some extent the players.

There were moments when it looked like a nice and effective inside hand off to Joe Smith was the purrfect set up for a play action throw off that and then back to Smith, etc etc and run it the other way. BUT, nothing. No variation on the theme like the way the Bombers use Roberts. NADA, nothing. Now is it that the Lions don't have it in their play book or the new OC gets a brain cramp in the game and forgets to follow up? I do think there is a learning curve for the OC and everyone needs to learn the gig at some time in their career just like a QB or any player needs someone to believe in him and give him their first chance so Kruk needs to be cut some slack.

I am not trying to attack the OC as I do think that some of the wrinkles they put in the other night were excellent. There is some good offensive thinking going on with the O coaches here and they need time and support to get it done, not being ragged on by the fans and last of all being questioned by any player.

Buck could have done some things better but the signs are there that he is not far off from repeating his prior performances and being the next great one in the CFL QB ranks. A second start this week should help him and should be better if his hurts continue to go get better. He has to do as good a job of protecting his body as he does protecting the ball. There is no glory for a pro QB who gets himself hurt and that change of thinking from that of the kamikaze days of playing college QB in an option system makes for a short pro career. I think he knows that and his injuries this year aren't really from tough play.

On defence, I think they did a pretty effective job and it is fun watching these guys do their job as this seems like a real together, outstanding unit with good coaching and hurt players acting like coaches. You look at the body language and chemistry of the D players and the D coaches on the side lines and you get a nice feel that these guys are solidly together. If Jamal Johnson wasn't signalling to the D, he was waving to the fans for noise. Otis Floyd was great when he was out too. Like extra coaches those guys.

Not sure but I think it was also Dante Marsh on the sideline with Johnson and the D coaches also signalling with Korey Banks right there the whole game.

Dave Ritchie just looks so confident there with his players in front of him and the D line coach (?) on the other side of him. This look gives that team on the field confidence it seems and it sure makes those injured players stay involved with the game which is the hardest thing for a player hurt to do when he is not playing that night. It might also get them prepared for coaching careers after football and that can't hurt.

Paul McCallum might leave fans phoning the manure supply company and looking up Paul's address in the phone book but that is far too simple a look back at this game. I still subscribe to the Hugh Campbell view when as coach of the Esks he found a dejected FG kicker, Dave Cutler in the locker room down after missing a game winning FG.
Hugh Campbell's words were words to live by as a coach or player. These words should be on his hall of fame induction plaque:

"Never be so arrogant to think that one play or one player wins or loses a game."

What I mean by this is that you can over analyze a game and conclude either that it was lost by:

a. the FG kicker who missed two FGs and if you add 3, they win.
b. Buck maybe as he missed Geroy on 3 and 5 and then add in the 'what ifs' from there if they got 1 and 10 and new life.
c. Ian Smart fumbling
d. pick a favourite and insert.

You can look at a game this way, but the Lion coaches will likely look at it more broadly and in all categories to see where they need to focus their efforts for next week rather than solely on one aspect despite how important it was in the outcome.

The good news is that that game could have been won! It is not that the Bombers beat them, but they beat themselves and just by a single point. That is positive that their two losses were beating themselves more than the opponent simply beat them and dominated as they didn't get dominated yet.

The fans at the dome seemed positive overall. That should bring them back. The north end zone is still not getting it done selling those tickets at 711 and whereever else. Safeway seemed to do better than 711 does.

Two guys walking down Seymour street asked us who won and then replied that they thought the Lions lost based on their reading of the crowd.

Frustrating game. Lions had their opportunities but mistakes and lack of execution killed them. Buck Pierce in my opinion didn't played that bad although he missed a couple of golden opportunities to hit receivers (Geroy) deep. The play calling was an improvement. I think 3 things did the Lions in: First and foremost McCallum missing two field goals, Rodgers (or was it Mock) stepping out of bounds after he was in the clear and Jimenez called for holding after Pierce scrambled for a key first down in the fourth quarter.

am not trying to attack the OC as I do think that some of the wrinkles they put in the other night were excellent. There is some good offensive thinking going on with the O coaches here and they need time and support to get it done,

No game plan or play calling in any game could ever be purrfect. However, since the Wally era in B.C. I thought the game plan and play calling in this game would rank in the top three during that time...comparable with Burratto's home game plan against Montreal in 2004 and Chap's game plan in Montreal in 2005. The result was different on Friday night but that was due to execution, not play calling.

In this game we saw as good a game plan in terms of diversity of the running atack, the best play action I've seen in the past four seasons, offensive shifts, multiformational offence, utilization of changing formations without the need for substitution, and a passing attack designed to open all three areas of the passing game, short, intermediate, and deep, with both crossing pattern and vertical schemes. I was very impressed!!

Unfortunately, it was only an average game in terms of line blocking for the running game and we didn't connect on our passes like we could have, mainly a result of Buck really hurting and unable to push off on his turf toe. It effects the trajectory of the football.

The key is putting together another good game plan against Calgary to get consistency. The one thing that would drive me crazy about the Chap was he could come up with an excellent game plan one game and go off the rails the next game. Consistency, in all aspects of the game, including coaching, builds confidence!!

I thought the game plan and play calling in this game would rank in the top three during that time...comparable with Burratto's home game plan against Montreal in 2004 and Chap's game plan in Montreal in 2005. The result was different on Friday night but that was due to execution, not play calling.

Both of these are extensions of Burratto's 2003 game plan against Montreal in Montreal (the one where Curtis Head was *ahem* roughed on the last play of the game).

If you ever get a chance to watch the tape of that one, focus specifically on JCs role in the second half.

Wally commented in today's Vancouver Sun that he "thought the offensive scheme was excellent" against the Bombers!!

If you ever get a chance to watch the tape of that one, focus specifically on JCs role in the second half.

What a memory...thanks 'cro'!!