Lionbackers.com

Must game for the Lions if they hope to finish 2nd. Lions have lost 2 in a row and now face the Edmonton Eskimos coming off a bye week. They should be well prepared. In both of those losses, turnovers have been the problem. Lions turned the ball over 6 times last week. If the Lions hope to win, they must play error free football.

TheLionKing wrote:Must game for the Lions if they hope to finish 2nd. Lions have lost 2 in a row and now face the Edmonton Eskimos coming off a bye week. They should be well prepared. In both of those losses, turnovers have been the problem. Lions turned the ball over 6 times last week. If the Lions hope to win, they must play error free football.

True. Turnovers, and turnovers alone, lost the two games against Winnipeg. Even after making four turnovers last week, the Lions were sitting on a seemingly comfortable fourth quarter lead. Their fifth and sixth turnovers did them in.

The Eskimos are a better offensive team than the Bombers. The Lions have to protect the ball and win the battle in the trenches.

I read the post by Blitz expressing his opinions of why the Lions won early in the season and why they are failing to win in the latter part of the season. I agree with his views. Cam Cole wrote a column yesterday and included in it was a comment by Wally " For the CFL to prosper, we have to do innovative things." I suggest that for the Lions to win and prosper,they have to do innovative things on the field. Will we see innovative things this game???? or the same old plays. While Wally was talking about mic'ing up players in this article, I can't understand why that hasn't translated to the the Lions' coaching staff on both sides of the ball or is Wally still in the "leather helmet era" and refuses to let the coaches innovate.Perhaps the coaching is as incapable as has been suggested I'm beginning to believe that the Lions best chance is to finish 4th in the west and cross-over to the east and that hurts while I have to listen to the Bomber fans here in Winnipeg.

I give Wally credit for supporting innovative ways to promote the team to a younger market. As for innovative play calling, he probably saw a lot more than he wanted last week, including Jeremiah Johnson's halfback pass to no one that was intercepted by Loffler in the red zone and Jennings' first-down bomb to Gore in the dying minutes that was intercepted by Fogg to set up the tying touchdown. If the Lions simply played smart, conservative football in those situations, they likely would have won the game comfortably.

longtimefan wrote:I read the post by Blitz expressing his opinions of why the Lions won early in the season and why they are failing to win in the latter part of the season. I agree with his views. Cam Cole wrote a column yesterday and included in it was a comment by Wally " For the CFL to prosper, we have to do innovative things." I suggest that for the Lions to win and prosper,they have to do innovative things on the field.

Will we see innovative things this game???? or the same old plays. While Wally was talking about mic'ing up players in this article, I can't understand why that hasn't translated to the the Lions' coaching staff on both sides of the ball or is Wally still in the "leather helmet era" and refuses to let the coaches innovate.Perhaps the coaching is as incapable as has been suggested I'm beginning to believe that the Lions best chance is to finish 4th in the west and cross-over to the east and that hurts while I have to listen to the Bomber fans here in Winnipeg.

I give Wally credit for supporting innovative ways to promote the team to a younger market. As for innovative play calling, he probably saw a lot more than he wanted last week, including Jeremiah Johnson's halfback pass to no one that was intercepted by Loffler in the red zone and Jennings' first-down bomb to Gore in the dying minutes that was intercepted by Fogg to set up the tying touchdown. If the Lions simply played smart, conservative football in those situations, they likely would have won the game comfortably B.C. Fan

.

I don't think longtime fan was asking for the option halfback pass, as it was known in its olden days. (now known as the tailback option pass). Nothing innovative about that play anyway...and while the play is ok I didn't like the call at the time.

I think longtime fan just was asking for some innovation from our present scheme. I know I'm not looking for so called gadget plays. I just want to see a diversified running attack and a balanced passing offence. To me, that means more horizontal passing style plays against Man/Cover 2, some formations as the bunch formation, which is designed to create confusion for man defense, rub routes, screens, and getting the tailback in open field when playing this style of defense.

I don't often give Wally a lot of credit but he deserves credit for supporting the CFL regarding teams getting miked up or anything that will build fan interes t. I also thought Wally was smart to publically support officials and the Command Center regarding the missed fumble. It may even help us with a penalty call down the road. Wally taking the high road in these two areas has been wise.

Regaring Jonathan Jennings and Wally supporting Jennings in terms of "he is my quarterback" is no surprise to me. If there has been a real area of strength of Wally is choosing which quarterback to develop and eventually start. Tedford gets credit for choosing Jennings, an underdog choice, last season, as our developmental quarterback, but Buono has made excellent decisions in terms of assessing quarterback talent over his long coaching career.

Wally has always liked mobile quarterbacks and encourages them to run (but slide). Wally doesn't coach quarterbacks but he plays a leadership role in their selection. Wally has made some questionable decisions in short term decisions (Dickenson -2004 Grey Cup, Printers late entry 2005 WDF, Buck insertion - 2006 Grey Cup, Dickenson insertion -2007 WDF) and back and forth dithering between Dickenson/Printers and Pierce/Jackson but he has almost always got the long term right, just like he has now with Jennings.

Wally saw what Flutie and Garcia, two mobile quarterbacks could do in Hufnagel's offence, in those early days as a HC in Calgary. After getting Dickenson signed in 2003, Buono signed Casey Printers as a developmental quarterback and moved him up to backup status in 2004. We all know how that season turned out. Buono offered Printers the starting job and a lucrative contract at the end of 2005 but Printers went to the NFL.

In 2007, Buono let Dickenson loose and turned the football over to Buck Pierce. Buono signed Printers part way throught the 2009 season and Printers played very well down the stretch of that season. Printers likely woud have enjoyed another good season in 2010 but he got injured early. Wally had signed Travis Lulay in 2009 and Lulay would go on to lead us the 2011 Grey Cup and a very good offence in 2012.

Jennings follows in a long line of mobile quarterbacks that fit the Buono mould. Knowing which young quarterback to sign, to develop, and to eventually start is a real Buono strength.

Back to innovation - perhaps that is not the best word. Perhaps diversified and balanced would be better.

In Khari's world, a screen pass or a reverse would be considered as innovative.

THE LIONS WIN THE GAME IF....

* They can get pressure and penetration on the Esks O-line. They're playing w/out Tony Washington at LT. Meanwhile, Jabar Westerman is out for the Lions, but this gives us the opportunity to start Bryant Turner and Mich'ael Brooks in the interior with Menard rotating in at DE - something I've been calling for all season (why not put Parker out on the field corner? It gives us more options and he's proven himself capable there).

* As mentioned above, Reilly will kill us if he has time. If he's under pressure, we'll force him to make throws he doesn't want to make or eat the football (you have to be very careful with him.....he draws a lot of "roughing the passer" penalties by virtue of holding onto the ball 'til the last possible second!). Either way, Reilly can nickel and dime us to death - time or no time. It's important that we take away the short/intermediate passing game. Turning Bighill into a DB is a recipe for disaster. Limit those completions across the middle to Walker and Bowman - death by a thousand paper cuts.


THE LIONS LOSE THE GAME IF....

* We can't turn our fortunes around in the turnover battle. Statistics show if you have more turnovers than the opposition, you'll probably lose the game. While it's not always the case, I don't want this to be the game to test that theory. More ball-hawking by our secondary please! (hopefully Edem gets on a roll, building on the 2 pics last game). I think you'll see Jonathon take fewer chances airing it out to the wide side of the field, especially late.

* We don't open up the playbook. More screens and creative misdirection (how about a fake jet sweep to Rainey that goes the other way to Sinkfield?). If the Esks take away Burnham and Arceneaux by going Cover 2 (with two defenders acting as safeties) with man coverage, we need some quick hitters to offer Jennings so he's not throwing up passes that can be picked off. I like the Esks' front 4 more than the Bombers, but I think the Bombers' secondary is more dangerous than Edmonton's. By far. Also, no more 3rd and 1 field goal attempts in the Red Zone, Wally. Show some confidence in your O-line! These late season battles are won by taking risk. How many times have we said "not coming away with a TD is going to come back to bite us" with Wally's teams. And they usually do!


DH

David wrote:THE LIONS WIN THE GAME IF....

* They can get pressure and penetration on the Esks O-line. They're playing w/out Tony Washington at LT. Meanwhile, Jabar Westerman is out for the Lions, but this gives us the opportunity to start Bryant Turner and Mich'ael Brooks in the interior with Menard rotating in at DE - something I've been calling for all season (why not put Parker out on the field corner? It gives us more options and he's proven himself capable there).

* As mentioned above, Reilly will kill us if he has time. If he's under pressure, we'll force him to make throws he doesn't want to make or eat the football (you have to be very careful with him.....he draws a lot of "roughing the passer" penalties by virtue of holding onto the ball 'til the last possible second!). Either way, Reilly can nickel and dime us to death - time or no time. It's important that we take away the short/intermediate passing game. Turning Bighill into a DB is a recipe for disaster. Limit those completions across the middle to Walker and Bowman - death by a thousand paper cuts.


THE LIONS LOSE THE GAME IF....

* We can't turn our fortunes around in the turnover battle. Statistics show if you have more turnovers than the opposition, you'll probably lose the game. While it's not always the case, I don't want this to be the game to test that theory. More ball-hawking by our secondary please! (hopefully Edem gets on a roll, building on the 2 pics last game). I think you'll see Jonathon take fewer chances airing it out to the wide side of the field, especially late.

* I like the Esks' front 4 more than the Bombers, but I think the Bombers' secondary is more dangerous than Edmonton's. By far. Also, no more 3rd and 1 field goal attempts in the Red Zone, Wally. Show some confidence in your O-line! These late season battles are won by taking risk. How many times have we said "not coming away with a TD is going to come back to bite us" with Wally's teams. And they usually do!


DH

Excellent post david. I enjoyed reading it.

Washington will be replaced by 6-foot-6, 320-pound Joel Figueroa. He was picked up by Edmonton as a free agent but has been a healthy scratch all season. He played in 26 games – including both Grey Cup finals when he was a Tiger Cat - so he has experience.

Like you, I've been wanting to see us play two International tackles all season. I also want Menard to get more reps. We'll miss Westerman - he's had a very good season. But it would not be difficul to play both Brooks and Turner as well as Westerman. When we go with two International tackles on the field, we play Menard at defensive end. When we have Westerman and one of the International tackles on the field, we play Roh. We can also add Lokombo to the equation, because when he is on the field, we can also play two International tackles. I also believe we should rotate Lokombo into Sol E. and Bighill's spot once in a while to keep them fresh.

So there is no need to start Parker at field corner, as you suggested but I would take Parker or Thompson over Stewart anyway.

On offence, Arseneaux had 150 yds receving against Edmonton which included a 75 yd. touchdown celebration (Manny went over to the end line and impromptu celebrated with a drink). However all the rest of our receivers were basically shut down that game and Jennings had his worst passing percentage game as a Leo (45%). Shocking! And all Edmonton did was play Man/Cover 2 and we had no answers. One bit of good news is that Gary Peters gets his second start of the season in the Edmonton backfield. Manny burned him in his first start, which was against us in Edmonton.

We don't open up the playbook. More screens and creative misdirection (how about a fake jet sweep to Rainey that goes the other way to Sinkfield?). If the Esks take away Burnham and Arceneaux by going Cover 2 (with two defenders acting as safeties) with man coverage, we need some quick hitters to offer Jennings so he's not throwing up passes that can be picked off.

Lots of ways to destroy man coverage underneath - slants, rub routes, crosses, bunch formations, screens, etc. But the real key is the use of the tailback in the passing game. If Benevedes goes Man/Cover 2 again, that means 7 defenders defending the pass and four linemen rushing leaves only one linebacker to cover Rainey and account for Jennings,

A key aspect of attacking that defense is to exploit its weakness - the one linebacker. The fake to Rainey, reverse to Sinkfield is a good concept. The jet sweep to Sinkfield the one time we ran it, netted 21 yds. We should get the ball to Rainey in the passing game, against that linebacker. We can also use a rub route against him and get the football to Johnson. We can screen against him. We can send Rainey quickly to the flat (the linebacker has to cover him and run a quarterback draw. We can use a inside read option, fake the handoff to the tailback and Jennings can run outside. The linebacker will be drawn by the fake handoff.

We can use misdirection, as you mentioned david, as in going with a misdirection play action and semi-boot Jennings. If Jennings gets outside, the linebacker has to cover either Jennings potential to run or cover Rainey. Put the linebacker on an island.

We should not run the hitch screen. It almost cost us an interception last game against Edmonton and also netted us a 7 yard loss - not the play to call against press man coverage if Edmonton plays it. We don't need to throw into double coverage.

I totally agree with you that Wally needs to go for it on 3rd and 1. Last time we played Edmonton, late in the 3rd quarter, on the Eskimos 35 yard line, it was second and 1. Johnson got 0 yds on a rush. Then Wally kicked a 35 yard field goal on third and 1. There are two patterns we've been seeing lately. We can't get two yards on second and two or one yard on second and one. But not gambling on third and one, in the oppostions end of the field is not conservative football. Its bad percentage football.

Red zone offence is so important. Last game, Khari Jones dials up a hitch screen inside the Edmonton five yard line. Terrible play call against man defense anyway but especially inside the five yard line and three cracks for a touchdown. We end up kicking a field goal inside the Edmonton five yard line. In the fourth quarter of that last game, we end up kicking a 10 yard field goal.

Those trips, deep inside the opposition's red zone, and not scoring a touchdown really hurt us. Wally not gambling on third and one doesn't help us. Not being able to convert second and two or less really hurts. We make so many great plays and then throw so many points away.

Hey, its not hard to be an offensive coordinator by having your quarterback in the pocket and running simple pass plays. That is easy. Send Burnham on a post, Sinkfield on a corner pattern and Iannuzzi on an out. Send Gore deep and Manny on a dig pattern. How hard is that? Then watch Jennings evade the rush, and with a defender in his face, have Jennings throw a purrfect pass into double coverage and watch Burnham or Manny outleap two defenders. Wow, brilliant offensive coordination work. Impressive!

The art of offensive coordination is game planning against an opposition weaknesses, using a diversified play book so you can attack those weaknesses, and play calling. Khari Jones game plan is always the same. His play calling baffles. His red zone play calling is often terrible. Teams tighten down there and you need quick slants, rub routes, quick digs, quick crosses etc. But no, we have Jennings throwing 25 yard passes from inside the opposition 5 yard line or we run hitch screens down there, or we run a Manny misdirection motion play down there that the opposition saw the week before and therefore we tip the play off because its the ony time we ever use that motion. We don't gamble on third and one down there. We run the tailback pass option play without setting it up properly and we run it against Man/Cover 3. Huh??

Jones seems to just have a list of pass plays and calls them randomly. He doesn't set anything up. He runs draw plays on second and 20 yards, when we are behind in a game. If Khari Jones had Matt Nichols as his quarterback, instead of Jennings, we would never score.

We only scored two field goals in the second half against Edmonton last time we played them.

I sure hope that Khari has a good game plan against Edmonton today. He needs to help Jennings and our receivers with some smart game planning and some good plays rather than just forcing Jennings and Manny and Burnham to make great plays when the defence knows what is coming.

I really found Wally's comment this week, emphasizing that there are really good teams in the West interesting. The comment is true. But its interesting that he used it at this time, as we have lost three out of our last four games and all three losses were to Western opponents. Its almost like making excuses or down playing our recent slide.

Yes, there are good teams in the West. The Eskimos have really improved and won three in a row, with that streak starting by defeating us. The Eskimos had not been playing well until that game. The Bombers have really turned their season around. Calgary continues to play outstanding football. The Riders have improved.

Only one team in the West has been sliding and that is our Leos. Seems like all the West teams have mostly the same players that they started with this season. So either our 'execution' has badly slid while the other West teams 'execution' has improved or there are other reasons for our slide and their improvement.

I think 'other' reasons is part of the equation and not just our turnovers. We can't run the football successfully on second and short while other teams running games are improving. We're throwing more interceptions now, than earlier in the season, when we weren't and Jennings had less experience then.

We need to get things turned around. Our defence is being exploited, our tailbacks have not run the football for more than 50 yards against a West opponent recently, and we've thrown almost 60% of our interceptions this season just recently - 7 in total against Edmonton and the Bombers. Jennings was only intercepted 6 times in his first 11 games.

Time to make some adjustments and get this Leo team playing to the level of our talent. A general consensus is that our Leos have the second most talent in the CFL. Time for our coaching staff to enable, rather than restrict that talent to flourish by giving them all the weapons to do so.

I find it disappointing to read that we should be finishing 4th in the West and going for the cross-over berth. That may be the best scenario now but that is because things have changed.

We beat Calgary in our season opener. We then went into Calgary and had them on the ropes. We had the talent to begin this season to be every bit as good as Calgary and now we are at the stage of wanting a cross-over. What the hell happened?

We are not in the position of likely blowing a home playoff game and gate. We're in the position of finishing 4th in the West. The Bombers have streaked past us. Edmonton was down low in the standings and now, if they win this game, they'll finish ahead of us. And its not just turnovers that got us to this place. Besides, its the coaches job to give Jennings conservative play calls when we have a lead.

Our defense has struggled more as the season has gone on and our tackling has been miserable recently. Our running game can't get us key yards when we need it and our red zone offence has been really poor.

We should have beaten Toronto at home and there was no excuse to lose that game. We lost the Calgary overtime game due to a defensive collapse. Jennings interception was only part of it. We lost to Edmonton because we made zero adjustments. We lost to the Bombers in Winnipeg, not just because Rainey was stopped on second and one but because we couldn't convert on second and two at all in that game. Allen was stuffed on second and two, before Rainey's third down play.

We lost last week against the Bombers because we had no passing play game plan to take advantage of their defence. Winnipeg shut down Arseneneauz and Burnham because their defensive coordinator made adjustments from the previous game. Our defence made zero adjustments from the previous time we played the Bombers.

I would love to see us get things turned around today.

David wrote:THE LIONS WIN THE GAME IF....

* They can get pressure and penetration on the Esks O-line. They're playing w/out Tony Washington at LT. Meanwhile, Jabar Westerman is out for the Lions, but this gives us the opportunity to start Bryant Turner and Mich'ael Brooks in the interior with Menard rotating in at DE - something I've been calling for all season (why not put Parker out on the field corner? It gives us more options and he's proven himself capable there).

There's a lot of confusion about the Lions' defensive line. LU referred to Turner and Brooks starting but Menard is listed at defensive tackle in the official starting lineup. Either Menard or Forde must be on the field at all times to maintain the ratio, which calls for two nationals on defence (Edem is the other). The Lions could, in theory, rotate Menard for Arakgi or Lokombo in a 3-4 alignment but that is something they haven't used recently.

Brooks' health is still a big question mark. Either he or Darius Allen will be scratched. I'd love to see Brooks and Turner get a lot of reps together, at least on first down, but it will take some ratio juggling to make it happen.

Blitz wrote:We can use a inside read option, fake the handoff to the tailback and Jennings can run outside. The linebacker will be drawn by the fake handoff.

Excellent analysis as always, Blitz.

Is it just me, or have pro offences largely reduced the zone read (sometimes known as the "ride and decide" play) from their playbooks, that was very much in vogue 5-6 years ago in the CFL and about 3-4 years ago in the NFL? Is there a reason for this? Have D coordinators made adjustments to prevent its effectiveness? I'll never forget a game at Empire several seasons ago when Ricky Ray (of all people!) ate us alive on this play.

Like you, I would consider a 4th place finish and a cross-over playoff spot a huge letdown after holding 2nd place for most of the season. It's not the way I want to get to the Grey Cup, and I really want another shot at the Bombers! Crossing over to the East and winning both games is never as simple as it seems, and the perception of a 'back door' route won't do much to instill confidence in the fan base.


DH

Lions have nobody to blame but themselves if they do indeed finish 4th

Here is what I think of the importance or consequence of todays game against Edmonton. Most importantly we need to beat Edmonton to get our confidence up. If we win, we probably get third place in the west and have another shot at the Bombers, which with our confidence up and knowing we can beat them, to get some revenge, and a shot at Calgary. However if we loose to Edmonton, we probably get the crossover. Depending on the outcome of the remaining games against Sask, I'm not sure of where our mojo will be at. The crossover might be the better route, as long as we go into it on a winning note, must beat Sask. We have beaten Hamilton and Ottawa both time this year and surely can do it again as long as our play improves. It would be absolutely amazing if we could be the Eastern representative in the Grey Cup and win it. My gut tells me though if Edmonton gets the crossover, then they probably would represent the East in the Grey Cup, which I don't want to see...I would much rather be it our Lions!

David wrote:

Blitz wrote:We can use a inside read option, fake the handoff to the tailback and Jennings can run outside. The linebacker will be drawn by the fake handoff.

Excellent analysis as always, Blitz.

Is it just me, or have pro offences largely reduced the zone read (sometimes known as the "ride and decide" play) from their playbooks, that was very much in vogue 5-6 years ago in the CFL and about 3-4 years ago in the NFL? Is there a reason for this? Have D coordinators made adjustments to prevent its effectiveness? I'll never forget a game at Empire several seasons ago when Ricky Ray (of all people!) ate us alive on this play.

Like you, I would consider a 4th place finish and a cross-over playoff spot a huge letdown after holding 2nd place for most of the season. It's not the way I want to get to the Grey Cup, and I really want another shot at the Bombers! Crossing over to the East and winning both games is never as simple as it seems, and the perception of a 'back door' route won't do much to instill confidence in the fan base.DH

David - there is a difference between the inside zone read and the zone read option. They really can be the same play or not. Confused? I'll explain. The zone read option that was in vogue a few years back (I loved your phrase the ride and decide) as you note. A few NFL teams that had a mobile quarterback at the time (eg: San Francisco) liked to run it. We were doing it in the CFL, before the NFL began to use it. Henry Burris lived off the ride and decide in Calgary.

But NFL teams that even had a mobile quarterback went away from it. Defences got better at stopping it and it also places the quarterback at risk for injury and they don't like that down there because second string quarterbacks don't come in and play well usually in the NFL. Seattle still uses the ride and decide a few times a game, when Russell Wilson is healthy and the Panthers use the play a lot but most NFL teams don't.

In B.C. we run the inside zone read. There is no quarterback option to run. Its not ride and decide. Its just decide. We hand the football to the tailback. When is the last time you saw Jennings 'ride' the tailback' and take off outside?

For this game, if Edmonton plays Man/Cover 2, my suggestion was, due to Edmonton's four man rush and seven pass defenders playing man and also spread out by our receivers, we use the zone read option on occasion. In that defence they only have one linebacker to stop the run. I wouldn't even ride it. I would fake it to the tailback and have Jennings run it outside (and slide of course).

It would open up the inside zone read play for us, that is recently getting stuffed, because the defence know we only can run it inside. We zone block for it and he tailback can cut it back to the back side of the play but that's it. It was the reason why I have been suggesting that we add some edge running plays all season (quick pitch, jet sweep, reverse, power sweep, quarterback zone read option, etc) to challenge the edge. and mix things up. You just can't have a running attack with only one inside running play and be successful. Actually we have two running plays because we zone block to our left and to our right but basically its the same play.

I would not want us to become a zone read option team. I just think its a good play to run the quarterback option once or twice a game, especially early in a game, so that the defence can't overplay our inside zone read running play. I also think its important for a running game scheme to attack the edge with the tailback or a receiver.

You need some variety in the running game just like you need variety in the passing game. We're too much of an inside running team and a vertical passing team. You need an inside/outside running attack just as you need a vertical/horizontal passing attack.

Seems like its difficult to get some offensive coordinators to do that. Chap drove me nuts in his early seasons here as OC in B.C. running an overdose of horizontal crossing patterns against zone defence and almost got our receivers killed. Now we have an OC using an overdose of vertical patterns against Man/Cover 2 and forcing throws into double coverage.

This isn't that difficult a concept. Have 4 running plays at least - two inside and two outside. Have some vertical focused pass plays and some horizontal focused pass plays (crosses, rub routes, etc). If a defence is playing us zone or man Cover 1, throw vertical patterns with Jennings arm and our receivers. If they are playing man or zone Cover 2 use more horizontal patterns and shorter patterns ( 8-12 yard dig routes, sideline patterns, etc. etc.

I hope I answered your question. Basically, right now we 'ride' and 'don't decide'. We 'huck and chuck' rather than 'read and use our speed' in the best way possible, in terms of OC play calling, based on what the defence is taking away and giving us.

What I would love to see is our OC 'scheme and dream' of the possibilities that he could create if he would stop doing the same thing over and over again, no matter what.