Lionbackers.com

Wally can be overly deferential to vets. He doesn't want to cut someone like Bates at the end of TC, so dumps him. While that is very kind hearted and perhaps noble, he should have kept Bates around to see if they needed him or not.

JH, Wally has his type of guys, to be sure. It has always been implied that Foley's presentation is not to the coach's liking.

Rammer wrote: you have to begin to wonder if he isn't holding onto the ball a little too long, given the two circumstances.

If you don't have enough time to make your reads, that's fine, just throw the ball out of bounds! You might even draw a roughing the passer penalty from it!

So, I have to say that I think that was the absolute worst, sloppy game of football that I have ever watched. Now, that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy watching it. It was really quite an exciting game - it just seemed like each team was trying to hand the game over to the other as opposed to the usual goal where each team tries to win the game.

Seriously though, overall I was very pleased with the defense. At times they seemed a little porous as some Rider drives were rather extended. But, all but one of those drives ended with the defense turning the ball over. Anytime your defense can get you 7 "bonus" possessions (plus another 6 points), you should win those games.

That said, with the way both teams played, Saskatchewan was very, very lucky to win the game. Had BC won, BC would have been very lucky to win the game. On that note...

Rammer wrote:Really I had no problem with the decision to hem the Riders in with the punt from the 33, it was the execution that was the problem. All second half we had the Riders O's number, had Paul done his job, the Lions would have been able to put the hammer down just by playing conservative. The punt sailing for the single changed the outcome of the game more than any other single play.

While I was surprised we punted (given the previous years of PM history, not his 2009 execution), I too thought this could be a smart decision that, if properly executed, might have even given us a safety. But, his inability to execute was not the TSN turning point. Buck Pierce delivered the game winning touchdown. His only fault was delivering to the human sieve, RGM. RGM has to catch that ball. If this were some bang bang play and his route isn't purrfect (or Buck's throw is off), then he can be forgiven for putting himself in a postion where he had to make a spectacular catch. But he had all the time in the world and was all alone back there. To stand there and completely misjudge where the ball was going demonstrates a complete lack of ability. I am guessing that he has blinding speed when he runs, because he could not catch the ball last year. And he can't catch the ball this year. Receivers are a dime a dozen. Unlike PM who has proved himself before and deserves a chance to work himself out of his current funk, RGM has never shown he has the ability to catch a football. RGM, don't let the door hit you on your way out. You need to be cut!

Sure, the list of issues the team has to deal with would still be there if RGM could catch and BC had won the game, but it's always better to be the winning team of a game nobody deserved to win if you had the opportunity. It isn't RGM's fault alone, but what he has shown me is that the last person I want to see a more important throw be thrown to, is him.

Tighthead wrote:Wally can be overly deferential to vets. He doesn't want to cut someone like Bates at the end of TC, so dumps him. While that is very kind hearted and perhaps noble, he should have kept Bates around to see if they needed him or not.

Hindsight being what it is shows that we needed Bates's veteran presence Friday night. But if I am looking at things objectively from a management standpoint, Valli and Hameister-Ries were eventually going to need an opportunity or were just going to rot on the vine. Further, they had the much heralded Justin Sorensen coming to camp, so it may have been the best time to cut ties with Bates when we did (although frankly, with some of the crazy deals happening, I thought we could have done better than a 5th rounder for him.....I guess that earlier leak from a CFL GM that we were looking to deal him hurt us big time. ).

What management didn't bank on was losing JHR for at least 9 games and Valli's inauspicious start. It would appear that Sorensen is going to need a lot more seasoning too before he is ready. I am glad Bobby Singh is around for depth and to work with our young guys.

DH

David,

I just don't see what was gained by dumping Bates that early. There is always a chance of injuries and underwhelming performances. There was little to be lost by taking him to camp.

Lui05 wrote:His only fault was delivering to the human sieve, RGM. RGM has to catch that ball. If this were some bang bang play and his route isn't purrfect (or Buck's throw is off), then he can be forgiven for putting himself in a postion where he had to make a spectacular catch. But he had all the time in the world and was all alone back there. To stand there and completely misjudge where the ball was going demonstrates a complete lack of ability. I am guessing that he has blinding speed when he runs, because he could not catch the ball last year. And he can't catch the ball this year. Receivers are a dime a dozen. Unlike PM who has proved himself before and deserves a chance to work himself out of his current funk, RGM has never shown he has the ability to catch a football. RGM, don't let the door hit you on your way out. You need to be cut!

Sure, the list of issues the team has to deal with would still be there if RGM could catch and BC had won the game, but it's always better to be the winning team of a game nobody deserved to win if you had the opportunity. It isn't RGM's fault alone, but what he has shown me is that the last person I want to see a more important throw be thrown to, is him.

Can't you give any credit to RGM for getting 5 YARDS behind coverage when the whole world knows that we're going to go deep on that play?? The stiff breeze at Mosaic had to blow that football a little off course, if you watch the replay from the head on view. I woulda loved to see RGM's route to get loose. Thing of beauty I suppose. As the coaches have said before, he catches absolutely everything in practice, and IMO is the most agile player on the team with blazing speed. While I love Arceneaux too, (who has great straightline speed), Walter Stith probably has better footwork than him. He's not an agile dude.

Yeah, it looked to me like the ball was pushed slightly from right to left at the last split second and G-M couldn't make the adjustment in time.

Aren't some of you jumping the gun a little bit here in giving RGM his outright release? While it was a horrific drop at the worst possible moment, he did have 3 catches on the night. Colt Brennan didn't establish an NCAA record for throwing the most TD passes in a season (2006) by not having decent receivers to throw to. I can't defend 'the play' - he's a pro and has to make that catch, but to be fair, he also missed a lot of training camp and both exhibition games with a hamstring injury. Timing is everything.

[youtube][/youtube]

DH

David wrote:Aren't some of you jumping the gun a little bit here in giving RGM his outright release?

I believe Rammer once said: RGM's name is in permanent ink on the depth chart.
He's not going anywhere. As I've said many a time before.. If we don't find RGM, we still have Clermont at slot, and that would be very problematic.

Note the YAC on that video. How many Lion receivers are capable of catching the ball then dragging tacklers for thirty yards?

Wind or no wind, Grice-Mullen ought to have caught that pass. As the saying goes, if you can get your hand on the football you should catch it.

Tighthead wrote:David,

I just don't see what was gained by dumping Bates that early. There is always a chance of injuries and underwhelming performances. There was little to be lost by taking him to camp.

I agree that there is a chance of injuries and underwhelming performances. However one has to think that with 6 backup NI OL coming to camp 1 should be able to survive through that an play well enough to fill Bates' cleats.

I don't agree that there was little to be lost. BC of course had lost Murphy to the Argos via free agency. Including Bates they still had 4/5 of their starting OL. Valli had been grooming for 3 years. Ditto for Plante. Hameister-Reis was healthy and expected to be ready to compete with Valli. Andrew Jones who was on the PR in 2007 and missed all of 2008 with a knee injury was also healthy. Last year's 1st rounder Justin Sorensen had signed a deal. Matt Morencie fell into their laps in the draft. Valli, Plante, Hameister-Reis and Jones had been with the organization long enough for the coaching staff to know if one or more were ready for that next step into a starting role. If there were serious doubts in their minds that they didn't have somebody in house ready to step up Bates would still be here. I think getting Sorensen under contract and drafting Morencie also contributed. Lots has happened since with H-R going on the 9 game DL and Plante failing the medical, but there was no way of predicting those things at the time.

If Bates is kept that leaves 6 young players BC felt have the potential to be contributors to their OL for years to come.....and only 2 or at most 3 roster spots to fit them into. IMO if BC doesn't deal Bates he's coming to camp as the incumbent starting LG, nothing less. They don't bring him to camp as an insurance policy in case of an injury that may not happen. The only way he doesn't keep the job is if he is the guy getting hurt or he inexplicably falls flat on his face and has a horrid camp. The latter is unlikely given he's only just approaching 34 which isn't old for OL, and he's been quite healthy throughout his career. If BC wanted to open things up for competition for guys who they believe are ready for the next step like Valli and Hameister-Reis the worst thing they could do is bring back the incumbent. Bates presence would be counter-productive in that regard as it would only serve to take away valuable reps and exhibition time from the very guys BC hopes to replace him with.

Any time you replace 40% of your starting OL you will have some breakdowns as it takes time for them to gel as a cohesive unit. Watching Friday's game it was quite apparent that everybody took their turns being turnstiled and it was further compounded by RBs missing picking up blitzers or releasing too soon. If the Riders were constantly exploiting Bates' old position you'd have a valid argument, but they were equal opportunity schooling each and every BC OL more than once.

David wrote:I thought we could have done better than a 5th rounder for him.....I guess that earlier leak from a CFL GM that we were looking to deal him hurt us big time. ).

DH

Hindsight is always 20/20. At the time of the deal most teams would've been fairly set with their TC rosters. Had Wally been able to gaze into his crystal ball and predict Wayne Smith would be done for the season 2 or 3 days later I'm sure he would've done much better. As for the other comment re: Friday I don't think Bates would've made any difference. Maybe the Riders get 7 sacks instead of 8........maybe they get 9 instead of 8. As a unit they simply were not prepared for all the weird stunts and crap Etch threw at them. I expect they will be much better on Friday against a more conventional D.

I learned long ago not to get too high after a win or too low after a loss. You're probably not as good as you think you are when you win and you're probably not as bad as you think you are after a loss. Just look at how many teams split back-to-back games, even if the first one is a blowout. Similarly, you can't cut everyone who drops a pass or misses an assignment. Keep the ones with talent and help them become better players. (I've never known RGM to have a reputation for dropping passes, by the way.)

It's Week 1 of the season and every team in the league made a lot of mistakes. If they focus on eliminating them, they'll grow together and become a better team.

I was wrong about the Lions this week. I expected them to play really well on offence. I'm still not giving up on their personnel after a sloppy loss. I believe this is a better team than we've seen in some time, perhaps ever. It just might take a while to gel.