sj-roc wrote:WCJ,
It's been one of your recurring themes on this board that the quality of coaching has undergone strong growth in recent years, and something in this regard in your last post stood out to me.
WestCoastJoe wrote:... times have changed. We have commented endlessly about the rise in the level of coaching in the CFL. It makes for exciting times.
It's a little bit ironic you say this at a time when many observers have noted games have become more tedious than ever. I don't say this to be confrontational. In fact, I believe you meant it honestly, that you meant it in the sense that because coaching quality has risen so dramatically, it has made it exciting — for students of the game, that's my key here — to observe the attendant evolution in strategy and gameplanning. This point, I can understand (and if I'm wrong on how I read the way you meant it, please feel free to correct me).
It does seem ironic. And I phrased it hurriedly for a quick post. Nevertheless, it was meant pretty much as you stated, sj. Exciting for students of the game. Evolution. Exciting times to have Kent Austin back from the US. Exciting to have Chris Jones unleash his attack style defence as a Head Coach. It seems to me the bar has risen fast and far, going back to the arrival of Hufnagel, Trestman, Austin and Milanovich. For example. We beat Regina with a dynamic run game. Next time around they have adjusted and they stuff our run game. We did not adjust, not well enough. There seems to be a definite swing in the balance from offence to defence in the league. Credit Jones. Credit Stubler. It is a constant evolution, and the teams/coaches that adjust best/fastest win the glory.
The problem of course would be that most of the people who buy tickets to watch all of this are not students of the game, but rather just want to pay for a few hours' entertainment to divert from their usual daily travails. One might draw a parallel here to the NHL. In 1995, the Stanley Cup-winning NJ Devils, coached by noted defensive disciplinarian Jacques Lemaire, ushered in a new era of defensive emphasis and almost made a relic of the 50-goal/100-point scorer (to this day they remain one of the few long-established NHL franchises, if not the only, to have never had at least one of either of these). Many NHL observers have put forth the view that this strong defensive focus by coaches sapped the creativity out of the game's most exciting players.
Point well made. Scoring sells tickets. At my age, I look for solid play. Could be defence. Could be Hunter Steward pass blocking. Could be Chris Jones blitzing. I still like great running plays, individual effort and the passing game though.
Was a time, for many years, when I could barely watch a team play that I rooted for. Too much emotion involved. That time seems to have passed. Now I can watch, and it is fun. Even enjoyed last night's game.
Do you feel that there's a valid parallel here? I.E., that the widely acknowledged tedium of the current CFL season — and I'm speaking in reference to the entire league here, certainly not just the Lions specifically — can be laid at least to some extent at the feet of coaches who, in the course of greatly raising the bar in their performance, are gameplanning the creativity from the game and the players? I wouldn't think it's 100% the case as for me, it's often the way penalties get called (or not) that seem to detract from the game. But I do wonder whether the former excitement of this game from seasons past would necessarily return if only we cleaned up this aspect of the officiating.
I just see it as the natural ebb and flow. For years, offence dominated. Passing game. Running game. Defences moved to tweeners, speedsters, athletes. More coaches went to attack style defence. Offensive opportunities were squeezed down. The swing was to outstanding defence. That is where we seem to be at. Even Ricky Ray is not throwing for 500 yards. Many QBs held under 200 yards passing.
In the long run, I see offences almost always dominating in our game, because of the field, because of the natural tendency for the guys with the ball to dictate. For the time being we are in a bit of spell where defences dominate. Defences gamble and cheat. They must be made to pay, with an attack style offence. We don't to that of course. LOL We play it safe. No turnovers. Go for the field goal at the 31 yard line on third and less than one.
Another point:
Bitter loss. But we almost took the loss lying down. No fight.
On the 1040 postgame last night, I believe it was Farhan Lalji who commented (and I sit too far away at the game to get a good read on this myself) that for pretty much the entire second half, the Lions' bench was emotionless, lifeless. Considering we played that entire half against a backup QB, had held the lead until the last play of Q3 and remained within striking distance the rest of the way, this is simply astonishing.
It is my feeling that players pick up on the mood, the sense of purpose, the determination of the leaders. If the players sense a drift, or lack of purpose, or a deeper reluctance to play to win, the players subconsciously drift that way themselves. Did anyone sense determination on the part of Benevides, as he fulminates on the sideline? Or does he have more of the look of a deer in the headlights? What is happening out there? If even Andrew Harris lacked his usual fire, then we cannot expect to beat a team that wants it more. Part of the determination is seeing a way to the end. Does Benny see a way to victory? Is he determined to find a way to victory, some how, some way, without fear of taking chances. Or does he hope for victory, trying to protect a lead from the 1st quarter? Trying to hang on to a narrow lead, as it slowly evaporates, leading to a loss?
Thanks for the question, sj. Just IMO of course.
