The Running Game? - Lowell Ullrich

The Place for BC Lion Discussion. A forum for Lions fans to talk and chat about our team.
Discussion, News, Information and Speculation regarding the BC Lions and the CFL.
Prowl, Growl and Roar!

Moderator: Team Captains

User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/opene ... z1RA6xAOsL

Some excerpts from the article by Lowell Ullrich ...
Was opener a one-off or a trend?

Attack on team's running game could be a rush to judgment

By Lowell Ullrich, The Province July 4, 2011

It's just one game. It's a passing league. The Lions were too far behind. It doesn't take much to summarize what the CFL team thought about its running game in the season-opening loss to the Montreal Alouettes.

The bigger question remains whether they are running toward salvation or suicide.
It was too much to ask, once the Lions trailed by three touchdowns in what became a 30-26 setback, to learn whether the Lions have sufficiently modified their approach toward ground transport, according to coach/GM Wally Buono.

But the raw numbers were not pretty to proponents of a balanced attack.

Trying to get his team back in the game, quarterback Travis Lulay threw a career-high 45 times. Handoffs? There were exactly three to the Lions' two running backs, Jamal Robertson and Andrew Harris. There are run/pass balancing acts in football and there are high-wire tightrope jobs where teams feel they have no choice but to ditch the run to win.

It just wasn't a lot different in exhibition play, however, when the Lions ran only nine times in two games while trying to evaluate players. That was more indicative as well of last year, when they were seventh in yards rushing but effectively were a lot worse.
But suggesting the Lions don't even respect their own running game is, well, a rush to judgment, they say.

"If this was a five-game pattern I'd think differently. We have put enough time and effort into our running game," Buono said.

"There were a lot more called plays on play-action stuff [against Montreal] that didn't get run. I respect our run game; we can't put the quarterback and offensive line into that much [passing] pressure all the time."
Indeed, offensive coordinator Jacques Chapdelaine spent considerable time over the winter assessing the attack. Chapdelaine said there was a detectable pattern of how the club attacked the line of scrimmage. Too detectable, so changes were made.

Some of the adjustments were evident in Montreal in the form of runs involving receivers Nick Moore and Shawn Gore. Robertson only had one carry, but it also contained a surprise element, a successful second-and-10 draw play.
The Lions have shown pitches to Harris and primary returner Tim Brown so it's clear there's more in their playbook. It's just one game. It's been many games, however, since the promise of one of the strongest ground attacks in the league seemed just on the horizon, back when Jamall Lee was healthy and Jerome Messam and Yonus Davis weren't in trouble.

Nonetheless, take away Lulay's 396 yards last year rushing off scrambles and the occasional called run and the Lions were decidedly the worst rushing team in the CFL. They also made the least attempts of any club to force the issue based on their carry total. Running backs averaged just 65.7 yards rushing per game.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/opene ... z1RA6xAOsL

Some excerpts from the article by Lowell Ullrich ...
Was opener a one-off or a trend?

Attack on team's running game could be a rush to judgment

By Lowell Ullrich, The Province July 4, 2011

It's just one game. It's a passing league. The Lions were too far behind. It doesn't take much to summarize what the CFL team thought about its running game in the season-opening loss to the Montreal Alouettes.

The bigger question remains whether they are running toward salvation or suicide.
If it looks like a duck ...

One game? How about last year? Or the year before? Are they indicative?
It was too much to ask, once the Lions trailed by three touchdowns in what became a 30-26 setback, to learn whether the Lions have sufficiently modified their approach toward ground transport, according to coach/GM Wally Buono.

But the raw numbers were not pretty to proponents of a balanced attack.

Trying to get his team back in the game, quarterback Travis Lulay threw a career-high 45 times. Handoffs? There were exactly three to the Lions' two running backs, Jamal Robertson and Andrew Harris. There are run/pass balancing acts in football and there are high-wire tightrope jobs where teams feel they have no choice but to ditch the run to win.

It just wasn't a lot different in exhibition play, however, when the Lions ran only nine times in two games while trying to evaluate players. That was more indicative as well of last year, when they were seventh in yards rushing but effectively were a lot worse.
Preseason ... 9 running plays in two games. Indicative?
But suggesting the Lions don't even respect their own running game is, well, a rush to judgment, they say.

"If this was a five-game pattern I'd think differently. We have put enough time and effort into our running game," Buono said.

"There were a lot more called plays on play-action stuff [against Montreal] that didn't get run. I respect our run game; we can't put the quarterback and offensive line into that much [passing] pressure all the time."
Five game pattern? As noted above, do last season and the year before count?
Indeed, offensive coordinator Jacques Chapdelaine spent considerable time over the winter assessing the attack. Chapdelaine said there was a detectable pattern of how the club attacked the line of scrimmage. Too detectable, so changes were made.

Some of the adjustments were evident in Montreal in the form of runs involving receivers Nick Moore and Shawn Gore. Robertson only had one carry, but it also contained a surprise element, a successful second-and-10 draw play.
"Indeed, offensive coordinator Jacques Chapdelaine spent considerable time over the winter assessing the attack. Chapdelaine said there was a detectable pattern of how the club attacked the line of scrimmage. Too detectable, so changes were made."

Well, yeah. Fans had noted for years how predictable the offence was. Predictable. Detectable. Same game plan vs every opponent it seemed. Same situation calls. Same patterns. So it seemed. And it certainly seemed that defences had very good notions of what to expect.

Good to hear changes have been made. The passing game looked fine. However much of that is attributable IMO to Travis Lulay. Elusive in the pocket. Good reads.
The Lions have shown pitches to Harris and primary returner Tim Brown so it's clear there's more in their playbook. It's just one game. It's been many games, however, since the promise of one of the strongest ground attacks in the league seemed just on the horizon, back when Jamall Lee was healthy and Jerome Messam and Yonus Davis weren't in trouble.

Nonetheless, take away Lulay's 396 yards last year rushing off scrambles and the occasional called run and the Lions were decidedly the worst rushing team in the CFL. They also made the least attempts of any club to force the issue based on their carry total. Running backs averaged just 65.7 yards rushing per game.
We'll see. The offence was not the main problem vs the Alouettes IMO. It was the quick strikes by Calvillo and Richardson and Green. The defence settled down. Our offence got going. We got back into the game. Got close at the end. Made a bad call. Game over.
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9798
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

Good story but the Lions aren't going to run and these coaches get more stubborn the more they hear this stuff from the fans and media. It's like we should all be screaming that they ran too much! Then the coaches might run some more.

Any offensive coach that came to BC with Wally and the Chapper here and that believed that teams have to be able to run have been victims of the running game. In fact they've all been run right out of town. :yahoo:
Last edited by Toppy Vann on Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

Toppy Vann wrote:... It's like we should all be screaming that they ran too much! Then the coaches might run some more. ...
:beauty: I think you may be on to something....

Coaches and Players usually seem to claim that they don't read any of this stuff (fanboards or media) but I don't believe them. Some of them would have to avoid it (especially during playoffs) but why do they usually seem to know what we (the media/fans) are whining about if they don't pay attention?
User avatar
Rammer
Team Captain
Posts: 22320
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:04 pm
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.

I think that the lack of run hurts us defensively as well, afterall you can't stop what you don't see. :tease:
Entertainment value = an all time low
User avatar
Lionheart
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5165
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:21 pm
Location: Ogden (Bralorne) & Burnaby

The lack of running in game one is a conversation that's headed a bit over the top. I'm not going to refute the historical basis for but this is a new season with one game. We fell behind real quick, and under that scenario the last strategy I want is a running game. Jeezuss...

Sorry for not agreeing with the herd here... (did I ever?)
User avatar
Rammer
Team Captain
Posts: 22320
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:04 pm
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.

Lionheart wrote:The lack of running in game one is a conversation that's headed a bit over the top. I'm not going to refute the historical basis for but this is a new season with one game. We fell behind real quick, and under that scenario the last strategy I want is a running game. Jeezuss...

Sorry for not agreeing with the herd here... (did I ever?)
Perhaps it is a reason for falling behind, and once up the Als played a different D which allowed the comeback to a point, or should I say 4 points.

If this was a one game of, I would agree with you, however this has been a JC staple for every season he is/was the OC, including his short stint with Edmonton. This is the same old same old, but hopefully the offense produced in the second half of the game (by air of course) has changed enough to win games without the wasted run down. But remember how much you like the run when the Lions are up by 10 with time running out.
Entertainment value = an all time low
User avatar
David
Team Captain
Posts: 9373
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:23 am
Location: Vancouver (Kitsilano)

Lionheart wrote:The lack of running in game one is a conversation that's headed a bit over the top. I'm not going to refute the historical basis for but this is a new season with one game. We fell behind real quick, and under that scenario the last strategy I want is a running game. Jeezuss...

Sorry for not agreeing with the herd here... (did I ever?)
I happen to agree with my friend Lionheart here. We were down 24 to frickin' 3 in the 2nd quarter. I don't know how much good pounding the rock would have done at that point. Let's be clear here. I don't want to see us pass 90% of the time either. But Travis was picking the Als apart with precision passing and we could easily have put 3 more majors on the board if not for blown calls/assignments and dropped passes - none of which were the fault of our quarterback.

Had we gone to a more balanced attack, there would be some on here questioning why we ran so much with such a big deficit, and why we abandoned what was working. Let's give Chap's playbook one more shot before writing off the 2011 season shall we?

DH :cool:
Roar, You Lions, Roar
User avatar
Lionheart
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5165
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:21 pm
Location: Ogden (Bralorne) & Burnaby

Lionheart reaches into cooler.... pulls out a cold one.. hands to David. :roar:
User avatar
pennw
Legend
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Chilliwack

David wrote:
Lionheart wrote:The lack of running in game one is a conversation that's headed a bit over the top. I'm not going to refute the historical basis for but this is a new season with one game. We fell behind real quick, and under that scenario the last strategy I want is a running game. Jeezuss...

Sorry for not agreeing with the herd here... (did I ever?)
I happen to agree with my friend Lionheart here. We were down 24 to frickin' 3 in the 2nd quarter. I don't know how much good pounding the rock would have done at that point. Let's be clear here. I don't want to see us pass 90% of the time either. But Travis was picking the Als apart with precision passing and we could easily have put 3 more majors on the board if not for blown calls/assignments and dropped passes - none of which were the fault of our quarterback.

Had we gone to a more balanced attack, there would be some on here questioning why we ran so much with such a big deficit, and why we abandoned what was working. Let's give Chap's playbook one more shot before writing off the 2011 season shall we?

DH :cool:
Well said . You'd think our Offense sucked from the comments here. Offense was not the reason we were behind ... it was our defense that spotted the Als all those points . It was our offense that scored enough to almost win after being so far behind .
User avatar
joe kapp22
Legend
Posts: 2754
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:26 pm

Well, tend to think those who are not thrilled with Chap not running the ball are more or less basing it on "same old same old" ie, ChapBall.

Can see their point, also think we will never run the ball heavily as long as Chap is the OC and Wally the HC, that is strictly my :2cents:

Interesting battle coming up this week between Peterson and P-Jax and if either or both will play on Friday.
Know the smallest things and the biggest things, the shallowest things and the deepest things. As if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground ... These things cannot be explained in detail. From one thing, know ten thousand things. When you attain the Way of strategy there will not be one thing you cannot see. You must study hard.
User avatar
Rammer
Team Captain
Posts: 22320
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:04 pm
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.

David wrote:
Lionheart wrote:The lack of running in game one is a conversation that's headed a bit over the top. I'm not going to refute the historical basis for but this is a new season with one game. We fell behind real quick, and under that scenario the last strategy I want is a running game. Jeezuss...

Sorry for not agreeing with the herd here... (did I ever?)
I happen to agree with my friend Lionheart here. We were down 24 to frickin' 3 in the 2nd quarter. I don't know how much good pounding the rock would have done at that point. Let's be clear here. I don't want to see us pass 90% of the time either. But Travis was picking the Als apart with precision passing and we could easily have put 3 more majors on the board if not for blown calls/assignments and dropped passes - none of which were the fault of our quarterback.

Had we gone to a more balanced attack, there would be some on here questioning why we ran so much with such a big deficit, and why we abandoned what was working. Let's give Chap's playbook one more shot before writing off the 2011 season shall we?

DH :cool:
Again this isn't based upon one game, this is the history of the Lions under Wally and JC as the OC/RC(lol). My question to both of you is simple, do you expect to see more of a running game from the Lions than in the past with JC as OC? From the stand that both of you are taking, I expect you do.'

Reaches over to Robert's cooler and helps himself to a cool one knowing that we will all remain friends after said differences are played out and buys the next six pack.
Entertainment value = an all time low
User avatar
Lionheart
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5165
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:21 pm
Location: Ogden (Bralorne) & Burnaby

:rotf:
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25104
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

pennw wrote: Well said . You'd think our Offense sucked from the comments here. Offense was not the reason we were behind ... it was our defense that spotted the Als all those points . It was our offense that scored enough to almost win after being so far behind .
It was also the offence which left points on the field. Field goals instead of touchdowns.
Post Reply