Lionbackers.com

Guess Tillman can sleep tonight

not the best game and yes lulay made a bad toss. momentum shift . The West is very strong this year. it will be tight. This team is not done yet and i see a fight to the finish with all west teams very good.

EEdef gave up 98 pts to here last year... 56 this year.

Lion Guy wrote:f*****g joke

Yuuuupppppp!

Totally bummed out about this game. So much for Wally's opinion that a closed roof gives us an advantage.

MikeAK wrote:Totally bummed out about this game. So much for Wally's opinion that a closed roof gives us an advantage.

I doubt the roof made a difference. It is just more noise for the opponent on O.

This ESKs D is better than last year and their off. did enough to win.. .Charles and Harris had great games for their teams... but failing to score on the drive leading to the ESK TD on the INT ended all hope.

this is getting old already, why can't we get it in the endzone?! give me the Leos of 2011, not 2009 please.

Guess Tillman can sleep tonight

Attendance 28,335

TheLionKing wrote:Guess Tillman can sleep tonight

Yes, if the Eskimos keep winning he will be safe enough in Edmonton. And it looks as if the team has an excellent defence, and a Fail Safe offence.

WestCoastJoe wrote:

TheLionKing wrote:Guess Tillman can sleep tonight

Yes, if the Eskimos keep winning he will be safe enough in Edmonton. And it looks as if the team has an excellent defence, and a Fail Safe offence.

Language can be so interesting, IMO. Where does a term like FAIL-SAFE get root? If everything fails we are still safe? We fair because we are safe?

Not arguing with your descrption, WCJ. It's the term I would (do) use to describe the Edm/Sask offences, IMO.

notahomer wrote:

WestCoastJoe wrote:

TheLionKing wrote:Guess Tillman can sleep tonight

Yes, if the Eskimos keep winning he will be safe enough in Edmonton. And it looks as if the team has an excellent defence, and a Fail Safe offence.

Language can be so interesting, IMO. Where does a term like FAIL-SAFE get root? If everything fails we are still safe? We fair because we are safe?

Not arguing with your descrption, WCJ. It's the term I would (do) use to describe the Edm/Sask offences, IMO.

I don't recall hearing it used to describe a football offence before this, Nota. It came to mind for me from the 1960s. A movie, a book, but more importantly, it described the nuclear stand off. You didn't want the red button pushed by mistake. That seems to describe the offence of the Riders, and, to a lesser extent, the Eskimos. Make no mistakes. No interceptions. No fumbles. Play it tight. Count on your defence. Win the turnover battle. Not the way to win the championship, IMO, but a good way to steal a few wins in the regular season.

Parcells liked that kind of offence with Jeff Hostetler at QB. They won a Super Bowl with it. No high risk plays. Double tight ends. Pass protection maximum. Running game. Big backs. Few passes. Et cetera. Seems like Fail Safe to me. To me it is an overly conservative approach, the opposite of a bombs away, high risk, go for it approach.

In the nuclear stand off the idea was backup systems. Double check. Minimize damage. Anticipate. Full attention to being careful. Fail Safe = Safety from failure = Avoid failure.

Ralph Sazio, defensive genius of the late 1950s and 1960's TiCats, took Fail-Safe O one step further. Not only did he put most of his best players on D, he kept the O under wraps so to speak. He didn't want the TiCats opponents to get too much film on his O so they would often score with the D and do just enough on O to win. Then come playoffs they would unveil some new plays on O that they had not used all season. The strategy worked well enough to produce lots of GC appearances.

B.C.FAN wrote:Rajon Henley has been made the scapegoat for the missed field goal return that decided last week's game. He'll sit in favour of fellow DE Brandon Peguese, who is considered a better special teamer.

Whoopsie.