Chapdelaine Will Call the Plays as Receivers Coach

[MacNews]

Generally if the run was shut down last year we sputtered.

I agree Brian but Dickenson was either injured or not at 'game speed', Jackson needed some more polish on his short throws, IMO, and Buck was in the same category as Dave.

If we had Dave or Buck healthy for the season, I think we would've seen more of a passing game. When you throw Jackson into the fire like that Kruck's mindset was run, run, run.

[WestCoastJoe]

Buono tidies up coaching clutter

Changes address concern that too many cooks can burn an offence

Lowell Ullrich, The Province

Published: Friday, February 01, 2008

Do the math. Two heads are not better than one. One head, however, is better than four.

That was the logic applied Thursday by Lions coach Wally Buono as he introduced his coaching staff for the 2008 CFL season, a lineup that didn't deviate from his original plan as reported in The Province in December (see chart).

Nonetheless, he did achieve what amounts to a total remake while retaining the overall structure, and nowhere was his intent to streamline more apparent than on offence.

Dan Dorazio will be the lone offensive co-ordinator this season. Steff Kruck, who shared the job last year, will go back to work as quarterbacks coach and Jacques Chapdelaine, named receivers coach, will be responsible for play-calling.

It's an admission, Buono said, that he heard the complaints of his players, who felt the dual-role arrangement stifled communication.

"I don't know how you want to say that, but at the end of the day part of my job is to listen and make good decisions," said Buono, who also brought back ex-Calgary Stampeders colleague Chuck McMann to work with running backs and special teams.

"The message is, I do listen.

"I heard what they said about Steff, Jacques and Dan. I heard what they said about centralization. I heard what they said about being coached and being pushed. What I want to convey to the players is [that] what they say has value."

On a day when quarterback Dave Dickenson agreed to make an inevitable return to the Stampeders and Jarious Jackson agreed to terms with the Lions on a deal that will be announced Tuesday, an offence that was fifth or lower in total yards and passing completions last season mattered above all when Buono looked in the mirror. Message received.

"That sounds a whole like that the 2006 coaching staff when we won the Grey Cup. I'm glad," said one of the club's primary offensive weapons, slotback Jason Clermont, who previously stated that the Lions needed to establish a better offensive identity.

"For the most part Jacques is the guy who taught us the [offence]."

And Dorazio has no quarrel with returning to the days when Chapdelaine worked under Steve Buratto as offensive co-ordinator but handled much of the offensive design.

"That was really my preference," said Dorazio. "You have to appreciate Steff, Jacques and I coached together for 39 games and won a Grey Cup.

"We dropped off in the passing game in efficiency last year.

"We need to play a more explosive passing game. But we're not going to reinvent the wheel."

That was also the general message conveyed during the annual state of the franchise news conference on the business operations side of the Lions.

As a tenant at B.C. Place Stadium, the club deferred queries about a rumoured fabric roof, lighting and scoreboard replacement next February to the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, which has been meeting on the topic.

For now, fixing the structure of their offence was considered progress enough.

COACHING LINEUP

Moving in: Mark Washington (defensive backs); Jacques Chapdelaine (receivers); Chuck McMann (special teams/running backs).

Moving out: Dave Ritchie (defensive co-ordinator); Jamie Barresi (receivers)

Moving around: Steff Kruck (co-offensive co-ordinator to quarterbacks); Mike Benevides (special teams to defensive co-ordinator)

Staying put: Mike Roach (defensive line); Dan Dorazio (offensive co-ordinator/offensive line).

Wally listened to the players' complaints about the 2 OC arrangement of last year.

I have some misgivings about this.

Jacques will be calling the plays, as receivers coach.

Dorazio, Kruck and Chapdelaine have worked together before, of course. Dorazio must have endorsed the concept with Buono. Kruck has to eat some humble pie, it would seem.

Not an arrangement arrived at in an ideal manner, IMHO, but Wally will no doubt make it work.

[OrangeShoes99]

Yep, sure sounds like a back stabbing, unhappy environment to me!

On a day when quarterback Dave Dickenson agreed to make an inevitable return to the Stampeders and Jarious Jackson agreed to terms with the Lions on a deal that will be announced Tuesday, an offence that was fifth or lower in total yards and passing completions last season mattered above all when Buono looked in the mirror. Message received.

"That sounds a whole like that the 2006 coaching staff when we won the Grey Cup. I'm glad," said one of the club's primary offensive weapons, slotback Jason Clermont, who previously stated that the Lions needed to establish a better offensive identity.

"For the most part Jacques is the guy who taught us the [offence]."

And Dorazio has no quarrel with returning to the days when Chapdelaine worked under Steve Buratto as offensive co-ordinator but handled much of the offensive design.

"That was really my preference," said Dorazio. "You have to appreciate Steff, Jacques and I coached together for 39 games and won a Grey Cup.

"We dropped off in the passing game in efficiency last year.

"We need to play a more explosive passing game. But we're not going to reinvent the wheel."

Let the games begin!

[PigSkin_53]

Yep, sure sounds like a back stabbing, unhappy environment to me!

On a day when quarterback Dave Dickenson agreed to make an inevitable return to the Stampeders and Jarious Jackson agreed to terms with the Lions on a deal that will be announced Tuesday, an offence that was fifth or lower in total yards and passing completions last season mattered above all when Buono looked in the mirror. Message received.

"That sounds a whole like that the 2006 coaching staff when we won the Grey Cup. I'm glad," said one of the club's primary offensive weapons, slotback Jason Clermont, who previously stated that the Lions needed to establish a better offensive identity.

"For the most part Jacques is the guy who taught us the [offence]."

And Dorazio has no quarrel with returning to the days when Chapdelaine worked under Steve Buratto as offensive co-ordinator but handled much of the offensive design.

"That was really my preference," said Dorazio. "You have to appreciate Steff, Jacques and I coached together for 39 games and won a Grey Cup.

"We dropped off in the passing game in efficiency last year.

"We need to play a more explosive passing game. But we're not going to reinvent the wheel."

Let the games begin!

Are you trolling Brian?

[OrangeShoes99]

Trolling Keith? Hardly, letting the article speak for itself....

Are you trying to pick a fight? 8)

[B.C.FAN]

I agree with Blitz that B.C.'s offence improved as the season went on last year, and it was encouraging to see the success of the running game and of the deep pass. There are a number of factors for this improvement. The co-offensive coordinators struggled with game-planning and play-calling for the first six games, Jarious Jackson grew more comfortable as a starter and developed more touch on his passes as the season went on, and Geroy Simon returned to his old form when he got healthy in the final part of the season.

In the first half of the season, the Lions threw for 300 yards only once, and that required overtime. They compiled more than 400 net yards offence only twice, in Games 8 and 9.

In the second half of the season, the offence became more efficient as it relied more on the pass and less on the run, and began to integrate Joe Smith into the passing game.

Here is a breakdown of the offensive production for the two halves of 2007:

First 9 games:
131 average net rush yards
206 average net pass yards
320 average net yards (after team losses)

Last 9 games:
111 average net rush yards
288 average net pass yards
373 average net yards (after team losses)

Most importantly, the Lions had a 6-2-1 record in the first 9 games and an 8-1 record in their second 9 games.

Despite this improvement, the B.C. offence still ranked fifth in total yards, sixth in first downs and fifth in average time of possession for the season. They led the league in scoring, but that stat can mask underlying problems. Much of their scoring success can be attributed to their league-leading turnover margin and kick return game and Joe Smith's scoring efficiency in the red zone. Many times the Lions won in 2007 despite gaining a lot fewer yards than their opponents.

Wally Buono is smart enough to see that there is a lot of room for improvement on offence, especially in the passing game. The team can't expect to keep winning consistently on turnovers and kick returns.

I look forward to an improved offence in 2008.

[Blitz]

What a laugh....I've heard of spin but this is something else!

Last year Dorazio shared the offensive coordinator duties and Kruck called the plays. This supposedly led to communication problems. This year Dorazio is the offensive coordinator but Chap calls the plays. No confusion there. Of course this will 'improve' communication!!

Huge point..we were fifth in passing. No mention of how much better we were at rushing the football or that we won 14 regular season games or that we scored the most touchdowns or points in the league. Just our passing was down.

Well, next year I anticipate our passing yardage will be up. Of course that may mean our rushing yards may be down. We were seventh in the league in rushing in 2006 and we didn't win as many games, lead the league in scoring touchdowns, or scoring points. I love how they focus on the lower passing yardage but dont' mention the running game or overall success of our offence.

Wally has listened to his players! They have their Chap back. Now they have no excuses!!This is a talented unit and will be successful no matter who is coaching them. How successful will be interesting. Of course if they aren't as successful we can always blame it on the quarterback!!

[cromartie]

Apropos of nothing, perhaps, but I found an NFL offense that reminded me of the Lions offense last year.

The San Diego Chargers. All runs and vertical passing. The run had to be effective to setup the vertical passing game. Even then, your QB had to be accurate in downfield passes, or no one took it seriously. When it worked, it worked great. When it didn't, you needed your defense or ST to bail you out in a nailbiter victory.

Obviously, this scheme fit JJ much better than Buck or Dave.

So, now, you get Chap back. And while his core scheme fits Buck better than JJ (who, if nothing else now collects a nice paycheck to be a respected backup) it's also a core scheme that has some mind bogglingly inane components (let's keep our best receiver in to block and "Fullback. You mean that Lyle Green guy isn't the equipment manager?") and others that this league, due to better athleticism at the linebacker position, more or less have figured out.

Ok kids, Chap can certainly be an ass personally, but he's here, and not going anywhere, so let's nut up and find an answer to the more interesting question.

If last year's Norv Turner offense had obvious limitations, and Chap Ball has been figured out, what's next?

[Blitz]

What's next is a great question cromartie.

My thoughts are that offences have to become as specialized and multi-dimensional as defences have become. Defences are multi-formational and they utilize specialized packages and change personel based on down and distance. They also use the elements of surprise (blitz, zone blitz, fake blitz-maximum pass protection, etc.)

Offences need to use more than one or two formations. The CFL provides the advantage of alot of motion that isn't being untilized. CFL offences should be using multiple formations from two back double tights, three tight ends, power back and scatback formations, wide bunch formations, etc.

The New England Patriots are an example of a multiformational team. They can run the power running game, the extra tight end game, or go to the spread. They don't target their offence short, intermediate, or deep but incorpoorate all three. They don't come out with one formation but game plan offensively to exploit specific defences and defensive tendancies. If a defensee overplays their pass they will run and run. If a team tries to overplay their run they will throw footballs all over the field. They stretch defenses and go vertical and just don't use the underneath passing game but they can also nickel a team underneath if that'as where a weakness is. They run innovative combination patterns.

We've been a team that mostly runs out of the single back spread offence. The only variation is the tight bunch formation. Last season we used the two back set at times. In 2006 we rarely ran outside because it's hard to do that in the single back spread offence. We need to use much more variation in formation and we also need to utilze all our weapons from six receiver sets with one of those recievers in the backfield to using Green and Bwenge and Clermont as triple tight ends to wide bunch formations to overload zones, to throwback patterns. We needmore misdirection in both our running and passing attack.

Defences have innovated and CFL offences are still stuck in one mindset. There is nothing wrong with the spread offence as part of an offensive structure. However, when it's used exclusively defences get better at defending it and it's restricting.

[notahomer]

....The New England Patriots are an example of a multiformational team. They can run the power running game, the extra tight end game, or go to the spread. They don't target their offence short, intermediate, or deep but incorpoorate all three. They don't come out with one formation but game plan offensively to exploit specific defences and defensive tendancies. If a defensee overplays their pass they will run and run. If a team tries to overplay their run they will throw footballs all over the field. ....

Agreed Blitz and a good anti-example of one of your earlier Chap-complaints (not adjusting to what your opponent is doing).

I still don't get why the passing game needs so much fixing. We ran a lot of times over the course of the season on second and long (3+yards to go). Smith was getting us first downs on those types of plays and it was keeping oppossing defences honest. I like the improved running game last season, it helped us out of some 2005 type failed conversions. Maybe its my imagination but I do remember a few more drops by Lions recievers (Simon in particular and even my fave Clermont). The Quarterbacks and O-Line have had their chances at wearing the goat-horns, I think its time our recievers had some bright lights on them. I know, what do I want, Simon was the CFL'S recieving leader last year, all I'm saying is that I don't think it was just the Coordinators/QB's fault he had a tough season at times.

[WestCoastJoe]

The New England Patriots are an example of a multiformational team. They can run the power running game, the extra tight end game, or go to the spread. They don't target their offence short, intermediate, or deep but incorpoorate all three. They don't come out with one formation but game plan offensively to exploit specific defences and defensive tendancies. If a defensee overplays their pass they will run and run. If a team tries to overplay their run they will throw footballs all over the field. They stretch defenses and go vertical and just don't use the underneath passing game but they can also nickel a team underneath if that'as where a weakness is. They run innovative combination patterns.

A timely example, Blitz, and very appropriate to the Lions situation.

All football fans can have some appreciation for what the New England Patriots do, whether they like the team or not.

With the athleticism and sophistication of modern defenses, the offenses have to be multi-dimensional. You can't rely on execution primarily, to the exclusion of different offensive sets and schemes.

You need a strong inside-outside running game (single-back and two-back), a vertical passing game and an intermediate-short passing game. It makes sense to "take what the defense gives you." You might try to ram the ball down their throats, or pass them to death, but you are playing to the defense's strengths if you do that.

I fully expect that Dorazio, Chapdelaine and Kruck can work together. I hope the concept of the offense is multi-dimensional, and not based on "execution at the expense of diversity."

Just from a management point of view, I have concerns when the players (the workers) can complain to the top boss about the communication, duties, or work arrangement of coaches (lower level bosses). Not saying it can't work, but it is vulnerable to attitude problems amongst the workers. This is not a concern so much with the individual players on the Lions, but a general organizational concern. Nowadays, of course, there is always room for input from all levels. You have to listen to people's concerns. We will see how it plays out. As with all of us, I will be optimistic that Wally can make it work.

[Blitz]

After the 2006 Grey Cup game, Dickenson and other offensive players said the defense had carried them and next season they vowed it would be the offences turn.

What needed fixing going into 2007? Well, first of all, we had led the league in sacks given up for the past two seasons under Chapdelaine. How to get it fixed? Run the football. Wear the defensive line down. Get them on their heels. Keep them guessing whether we would run or pass. We did that and going into the last game of the season we had given up the least sacks in the league.

Going into last season the other obvious area that needed fixing was our running game. Sure Joe Smith was a big boost in 2006 but we didn't use him as effectively as we needed to. We were seventh in rushing attempts in 2006 and finished fifth in rushing yards. It was obvious we needed to run Joe Smith more, we had an excellent offensive line that needed to be able to play more aggressively (remember our same offensive line last season, in 2006, gave up the most sacks in the league), use play action more.

It was also obvious in the Grey Cup game that two things happened again that had happened to our offence in 2005 and when we played tough defenses in 2006-they shut down our inside run and they focused on our intermediate passing attack. We didnt' complete a pass to Simon or Clermont in that game and we struggled offensively in scoring touchdowns. We needed to run outside more and we needed to set up play action. We needed more balance in our offence.

We accomplished those goals in 2007. We became outstanding at not giving up sacks. We got the tough short yards. We scored inside the red zone. Unfortunately our passing attack struggled...a combination of attitude, changing quarterbacks, Jarious needing to get over his nervousness, and just plain execution. There were times when players like Simon were open early in the season and we didn't get him the football and other times when he was covered like a blanket and our quarterbacks forced it to him, and a lot of dropped footballs from our receivers that started in training camp and continued at practices and games in the first half of the season.

However, except for running the football more we didn't change our passing game. Wally finally got pissed off and said we were running the same passing plays. Some of it was just a lack of execution. Dickenson wasn't sharp with his passing to start the season, Buck playing injured, adjusting to Jarious etc. However, I believe a bigger factor in the first half of the season was just plain attitude from our skilled positions on offence.

It started from Day 1 in training camp with a couple of players questioning Kruck's credentials. Dickenson, who was missing Chapdelaine and said so quite strongly whined the most. He complained, after our first game in a win against Toronto, when we ran the football on second down. Then he whined that our offence didn't have an idenity early in the season and said we needed to decide whether we were a running team or an intermediate controlled passing team or a long ball throwing team and that we couldn't do them all. Huh? That's the ideal for an offence...to be able to do it all well. He wanted the old intermediate spread offence back. Then Dickenson said it wasn't 'as much fun' this season as if everything was a barrel of laughs with Chapdelaine. Dickenson then got hurt after three games and we didn't have to listen to him whine anymore.

Then Geroy started it up. He didn't know if he was the 'go to receiver' anymore and was upset with his production. Not sure why he was upset if he was 'hurt' as he supposedly was! You'd think he'd have been happy to be a decoy if he was hurt. He wasn't hurt at the time he made the comments. He was just plain unhappy because Buck was throwing to Clermont a lot in the passing game and we were still running the football with Joe Smith a lot.

It took a while but finally when Jarious got going and started to find Geroy deep for some big plays things settled down and we went 7-1 to end the season and Geroy won the receiving title for yardage in his final game. However, they were used to us being a pass oriented football team using the spread formation. Receivers were used less down at the goaline and there were a lot less touchdown dances from receivers as we pounded Joe Smith in the red zone to almost break Pringles season record as he led the league in touchdowns scored.

We started the 2006 season 2-3 and won 13 games. In 2007, with the need to use 3 quarterbacks and Jarious the majority of the time.... a nervous quarterback lacking experience and confidence to begin with and still won 14 games while leading the league in scoring and scoring touchdowns.

As for the concept of our offence benefiting from our defense in 2007 our offence benefited much more from our defense in 2006. In 2006 our defense allowed opposition offences the fewest plays from scrimmage and the fewest first downs. They had more turnovers (61), including 59 quarterback sacks, 36 interceptions, and 10 touchdowns while giving up 18.9 points per game.

In 2007, our defense increased their sack total by two sacks to 61 but they were thrid in stopping oppostion teams in giving up first downs, had 24 interceptions, down 12 from 2006, had four less takeawys, and sure didn't score 10 touchdowns off turnovers, and gave up 19.8 points per game.

In 2006 our offence averaged 26.9 points per game while playing with a better defense and benefited from more points scored by our defense. In 2007 we averaged 27.2 points per game to lead the league. Yes our passing stats were down as we dropped from second in the league in 2006 to fifth but our rushing yardage went from fifth to third. We also had to deal with the fact that Tony Simmons got hurt again and never recovered the form. It was a decison that hurt our offence in that we didn't have a second import receiver who could open things up. Boden started at the end of the season with almost no experience.

So, yes, our passing attack was not as good as 2006, our running attack was better, we gave up a lot less quarterback sacks, averaged more points per game, scored more touchdowns, and won more games. So the 'big problems' for our offence in 2007 didn't exist. We would have been even better if we had an experienced quarterback playing most of our 2007 season. Instead we had a hurt Buck for four games and he had only 6 previous CFL starts and Jarious started 11 games, in his first season as a starter.

I strongly doubt that Chapdelaine would have been able to duplicate the same success, based upon the same circumstances, that our offensive coordinators experienced in 2007. In fact, he didn't duplicate the same regular season success with Dickenson starting 12 regular season games in 2006. The only difference was that he had a healthy, well practiced Dickenson for the 2006 Western Final and we were dealt the hand of starting a quarterback in the Western Final who had never started a CFL playoff game and then Wally inserted a rusty, gun shy Dickenson. We were also playing a much better Saskatchewn team. Win that game and a Grey Cup was likely.

However, I certainly don't believe we needed Chapdelaine back to rescue our offence. In fact I wish we could have just brought in a different recievers coach. I would have been happy to have Kruck in the press box calling down the plays to Dorazio who could then send them in. That would have been the only thing I would have changed for 2006. Dorazio had the resume and Kruck didn't so I would have made Dorazio the offensive coordinator and used Kruck to help him call plays by sending them down to the sidelines.

Kruck overall did a good job of play calling and personally I thought he called better games than Chapdelaine ever did and certainly made better second half adjustments. However, it might have been an easier sell for players and fans for Dorazio to have been the sole offensive coordinator and they wouldn't have been able to use Kruck as an excuse when they didn't play well or we didn't execute in the passing game with the same plays as the year before, or when we ran the football more than some receivers liked.

In the end, a few players won this little poltical game and I feel sorry for Kruck and in many ways I feel sorry for Dorazio too, because they can call him the offensive coordinator but in effect they have handed the keys to Chapdelaine again.
The Chap runs out on Wally even though Wally pleads with him to stay, goes to the Evil Empire, where he is run out of town under heavy criticism and even mocked, and we just hand him the keys to the offence again..just like that. Blows me away!! The guy is run out of Calgary and Wally hires him right away in B.C. and humiliates Burratto in the process of making him offensive coordinator. He gets run out of Edmonton and Wally hands everything back to him on a silver platter again. I'll cover a bet with anyone that it wasn't Joe Smith who went to Wally and asked for Chapdelaine back. I'll certainly take a bet that it was a couple of our receivers. I'll even guess there was some self-interest in their decision to approach Wally and ask for the Chap back. Yippee...less run blocking and more passes thrown!!

As for Wally 'listening' the real story is that he "doesn't want to listen" to one of them *beeotch* all season this year. That is the best outcome of this decison. However, for a guy who play called games for 14 wins last year Kruck is back in the spotters box. If you're Chapdelaine, someone no other team was interested in, you've got horseshoes up your #*#* and if you're Kruck....well, you're not so lucky!!

[OrangeShoes99]

As for Wally 'listening' the real story is that he "doesn't want to listen" to one of them *beeotch* all season this year. That is the best outcome of this decison. However, for a guy who play called games for 14 wins last year Kruck is back in the spotters box. If you're Chapdelaine, someone no other team was interested in, you've got horseshoes up your #*#* and if you're Kruck....well, you're not so lucky!

My god...I assume the "one of them" is Simon? Tell me Blitz, what is the personal vendetta you have against Wally, Chaps and Simon? Now you're dragging Dickenson through it as well? Where do you get all this factual information that all this whining and *beeotch* takes place? You have no connections to the team. Seriously, I'm curious as to what facts you have to back up this stuff. I think the people you're slagging deserve that, no?

A message board is for opinions. If it is your opinion this stuff happened, then that's one thing, but you present it as fact constantly.

You make it sound like Kruck was responsible for all 14 wins. Our defense bailed us out of more than a few games last season. Games down the stretch, when then the offense got stagnant. How about the loss at home to Sask when Joe Smith touched the ball 9 times...9!!!!!!!

Anyway, I've made my feelings on the matter known. I would just like to know where you get the information to back up your accusations, when we've had statements from the coaching staff, and players like Clermont on this board that don't support them. Who's feeding who the B.S. I guess people will form their own opinions!!

[PigSkin_53]

What the hell is Buono talking about?

He says Dorazio is to be the lone offensive co-coordinator, and he has announced he recognizes there was stifled communication by the previous dual-role arrangement.
How then is this arrangement in anyway different than last season? It is still offensive coordination by committee. The rest is semantics.
The only difference is Chapdelane will now call singles instead of Kruck.

According to Wally the players have complained that Dorazio and/or Kruck coached them but didn’t push them, or vise-versa. Wally is vague on the details which I can only assume means that why the “players” were adamant to have Chapdelane back right?

"That sounds a whole like that the 2006 coaching staff when we won the Grey Cup. I'm glad," said one of the club's primary offensive weapons, slotback Jason Clermont.

I don’t see why Clermont sites the 2006 GC game as an example of why Chapdelane return as good for the team, as other than the one touchdown by Smart in the second quarter, Chapdelane’s anemic offense was completely shut down in the second half, Jason himself with 27 yards in total receptions on the day.

Last time I checked it was the Head Coach who set the standard to what was acceptable behavior and path the ground rules would follow, not the players sniveling about lack of communication and their touches, or dumping on one assistant coach to get back another renegade gone wrong.

Who’s running the football club Wally or the players?

And Dorazio has no quarrel with returning to the days when Chapdelaine worked under Steve Buratto as offensive co-ordinator but handled much of the offensive design.

Yah, we all remember how that work out with Burrato getting blamed by the “Chap” who went running to Wally crying that Buratto was interfering with his GC game plan, getting him the boot so as he could run the whole show himself the following season.

But then Steve was an outsider in the Lions organization, and got shafted as the “scapegoat “, just like Jacque was shafted in Edmonton right?

Blitz has been chided for slagging the malcontented prima donnas on the team last season, but the real reason for the protest is because they cannot argue the fact he proves and convincingly so, we had superior total offensive production last season, despite having poorer offensive support by defensive performance as far as winning games and scoring, and most interestingly and to the point, without playing Chappy Ball!

[SammyGreene]

I don’t see why Clermont sites the 2006 GC game as an example of why Chapdelane return as good for the team, as other than the one touchdown by Smart in the second quarter, Chapdelane’s anemic offense was completely shut down in the second half, Jason himself with 27 yards in total receptions on the day.

Just a hunch ... but I think Jason was referring to the entire ’06 season and not just one game. Or maybe it was the "anemic" offence that put up over 400 yards (including 171 on the ground) in the 45-18 WF win over the Riders?

And labeling him and Simon as prima donas? No wonder he rarely posts here anymore. He wins the Most Outstanding Canadian Award without Chapdelaine last season yet is happy to see him back with the team. Yep... that sounds like a real selfish player looking out for his own best interests.

Yes... give the Lions credit for putting up 14 wins last season but anyone who thinks that team was equal or better than the ’06 version is fooling themselves. They were damn lucky to win a number of games down the stretch (Edmonton, Winnipeg and Calgary) where in ’06 they were steamrolling towards the playoffs.

If Wally and some key players are happy to have Chapdelaine back then that's good enough for me.