TheLionKing wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:10 pm
Leadership is about 'readiness' and 'motivation'. Its also about 'preparation' based upon the circumstances. There was no readiness, motivation, or preparation created for this contest. Buono said he was unhappy with his team the week prior. He was concerned about his players attitude going into this contest. He got upset in the dressing room prior to the game, as his players did not gather around him when he began his pre-game talk to his players.
But what did Buono do about any of those things. Nothing much it appears
The entire team seemed to have waved the white flag along with their coach.
That's a good concise summary The Lion King. The question is why?
At the same time, we are dealing with a complex discussion when it comes to an analysis of our loss against the Rough Riders.
In terms of the issue of motivation, I don't view it as a black and white issue. Coaches, player leaders, and players all have a responsibility all have a role in the area of motivation. As mentioned, a Head Coach's success or failure, in the area of motivation is best measured over time but its still ok to look at motivation on the basis of one game, as we are looking at our humiliating loss to the Riders.
In looking at our loss to the Riders, I think the biggest concern is not that we lost or that we just didn't play well at all but how we lost that game.
Motivation for a single football game is also a determining matter, and especially if that one game is a single elimination playoff game or even a regular season game that determines a playoff spot, for example.
In reflecting upon our loss to the Riders, I wrote that I believed everyone shared in the responsibility, from the Head Coach, his coordinators and assistant coaches, our player leaders, our starting quarterback, and most players themselves.
Yes, professional players will say its their responsibility to be motivated to play. Yes, it is their responsibility and they usually take ownership of that responsiblitiy. Yes, its also the responsibility of coaches to also ensure that their players are motivated and many coaches also take at least a share of that responsibility. Our coaching staff has not and usually does not.
I agree with the notion that leadership has to be distributed. While the Head Coach is the 'official' leader he also should be the 'unofficial' leader that others want to follow. True leadership is a down - up concept. In other words, if the leader didn't have the 'title', he would still be the person most others would still want to follow.
At the same time, we cant' depend always on just one person to provide leadership. Success usually involves many taking on leadership roles. Coaching coordinators lead their units. Team captains provide peer leaderhship. The quarterback, just by the nature of his position on the field, is in a leadership role.
In terms of Wally's pre-game talk with the players, I agree that pre-game speeches, most of the time, do not play much of a role in the outcome of a game. Games are won in practice and mental preparation. Pre-game speeches should just focus on a couple of goals or serve as a reminder of the theme of the game ahead.
I have no problem with Wally wanting to pass the torch of leadership prior to the game against the Riders to Rolly Lumbala. But it was how Wally did it that concerned me. Asking Rolly to talk to the players because they wouldn't listen to him was not leadership. Wally should have insisted that they listen to him first, because obviously Wally had something he had planned to say to the players and then didn't say those things. Instead he sulkledd and waved the white flag.
In terms of the game itself, there appeared to be a lack of leadership, as well as motivation, from too many areas. Leadership should have arrived with not just the same game plan as the week before. The game plan should have included new offensive plays or at least some adjustments to some offensive plays that would exploit weaknesses observed in the previous contest. In the previous contest, we had a lot of drives that ended up in field goals for example. We should also have anticipated that the Riders defense would make some adjustments from the previous game.
On defense, we knew that the Riders scored a couple of touchdowns later in that game on deep plays and would likely be looking to exploit that area of our defense. We also know or should know, for example, by looking at game tapes, that we very often do not cover the back out in the flat area. Winnipeg exploited it and we should have anticipated that the Riders would exploit it or be able to make a quick adjustment if they started to.
But the problem that we have, that posters as David and WCJ and others point out, is that we don't make many adjustments from one game to the next or within games either.
I view it as the 'one best way of leadership' vs a contingency view of leadership. In other words, Wally (and his assistants either by design or lack of ability) trot out basically the same stuff week after week, game after game. The notion is that we have the best scheme on offence and defense and if we execute it, no one can stop us. Its arrogant or its rigid or its both.
It doesn't take into account that other teams will make adjustments to stop our bread and butter plays on offence or design defenses to take away our strengths or that opposition offences will attempt to exploit the weak areas of our defensive scheme (and every defense, no matter what scheme used will have weaknesses).
If our players don't win, its always blamed only player execution. I find that very, very frustrating, as well as lacking in common sense.
We've already seen that philosophy at work this season. Its often shown up in terms of 'plug and play'. Receivers and defensive backs are expected to shift positions and play new positions with a week or less of practice. The scheme is grandiose. You are an athlete. Now go out there and execute. But this is the pros and each position has special nuances and reads and requires very specific knowledge as well as specific skill sets. Its not just as easy as Wally expects it to be. Just go out there and 'execute' your new position at a very high level, at the pro level, is asking a hell of a lot, if not the imposible.
After this game, Wally placed a lot of blame on our quarterback position not getting rid of the football quickly enough. He said the same thing about Travis Lulay, following our Edmonton loss. One would have to be brain dead to not see that our quarterbacks were too often hurried, hit, and sacked in this contest, even with a three man pass rush. For Wally to avoid looking at that issue is a deflection.
But there is also truth that there were times that Jennings especially hung onto the football too long. Most likely that was due to the Riders dropping nine off on most plays and our receivers were blanketed on those occasions. Some of that was likely on our receivers and some of that was likely on play design with that type of coverage.
Regardless of the play calls, there was no excuse for Jennings to throw into double coverage deep as well as throw into double coverage as often. One problem is that he has been encouraged to do so or certainly not discouraged to avoid throwing into double coverage (while also being told not to throw interceptions - now that is a conflict).
Wally can't escape a couple of facts. Both Jennings and Lulay have been sacked the most in the CFL so far this season. Combined, Lulay and Jennings have also thrown the most interceptions this season. That is a correlation.
Secondly, if our quarterbacks are taking too long to throw the football, Wally and his coaches should be sharing in the responsibility for that. First of all, quarterbacks can be trained in practice to throw the football more quickly. Many coaches use a stop watch to emphasize getting the football out in time. Play design is also a factor. Quick first read routes can play a role. Length of routes and types of routes are a factor (and our stems are often too long). Well designed screens, quick underneath routes, and hot routes play a role.
I don't see our offensive design taking full advantage of our talent. I'll provide one example of many I could write about:
Chris Rainey is a special player. He has that very, very hard to find talent of incredible speed, cutting ability, and toughness. He is amazing in space. He can make a player appearing ready to tackle him in space miss him by 5 yards. He can run and he can catch and he does not go down easily.
So how do we use him when he enters a game. If he is given the football on a handoff, we always run him inside on the inside zone read. We never design a running play for him to run outside - such as a pitch toss, a sweep, or a misdirection counter. In the passing attack, we either use him for an quick dump off, with the defense primed for that play or we line him up as a slot back, where he will be covered by a defensive back and we give him an underneath pattern that does not utilize his incredible speed.
Its stupid. We should be using Rainey as a tailback, when in the game, as a runner that runs both inside and attacks the edges. As a receiver, we should be isolating him on a linebacker and having him run crossing routes or wheel routes that take advantage of his speed. We should be using him in the screen game. In other words, we should be finding every way possible to get Rainey into space, where his great speed and cutting ability are fully utilized.
That we don't is a complete lack of imagination and rigidity.
Right now, it appears, no matter our differing views of the loss to Regina, that as Leo fans we are motivated. The topic has passion.
I would love to se the same kind of passion be part of our Leos next game, from coaches to player leaders to players. If that could happen, I think we'll at least put up a much better fight than the one almost everyone involved on our Leos did not put up in Regina.
