2nd and Short - Are We Serious?

This shotgun nonsense on 2nd and 1 is starting to get really tiresome. Nobody believes Glenn is going to keep it and run anywhere, so its an obvious run.... get under centre, bring in your backup QB, and sneak the damn football.

I dont care if we won by 20+ points last night, our play calling in these situations is pathetic and it has already cost us.

Actually, being in shotgun or under centre on 2nd-and-1 does the exact opposite you’re talking about. When in shotgun, there is always a chance to make a big play. Perhaps Glenn sees something and they take a shot down field. If he’s under centre, everyone and there grandmother knows it is going to be a run. Look at the 2pt convert from last night. Had Cobb not bumped that outside, he would have been stuffed. Being under centre on 2nd-and-1 tips your hand. Being in the shotgun allows for diversity.

And seriously, the Cats just won 36-11 and you still have something to complain about?

Being in shotgun may allow for diversity, but until last night Gibson hasn’t shown any.

Instead of having Cobb try and stuff it straigh ahead he went wide around the line and got the score. Brilliant.

It's clear that Cobb is getting fed up with being thrown under the bus for the lack of an effective offensive play-book and has decided to do what he is good at in spite of the stupid play-calling ........and it works !

Cobb is a wizard when left to his own instincts and the sooner the coach's realize this, the better off the team will be. We don't have the O-Line to keep trying to stuff him up the middle.

Repeating the same thing and expecting different results is just dumb and dumber.

We could win 150-0 and people would still be whining.That's probably the only downside to being a Ticat fan.

I challenge you to watch the rest of the games this week and tell me another team that treats 2nd and 1 the way we do. If its 2nd and 1 - it doesnt matter if they know what we're doing, it should be a QB sneak 99% of the time.

You talk about having options out of that formation, im fine with that , but as others have noted... i dont see any creativity from that formation either, Wheres Thigpen to give another look to the D? wheres the fake handoff roll out with layers of receivers? and as i said earlier.... none of this should matter because 2nd and 1 should be a sneak... and if you dont get it, 3rd and 1 should be a sneak.

As for the complaining comment, we beat Edmonton. Lets make these mental mistakes against Calgary and see what happens..... oh wait, we already did and it cost us THAT game too.

We win a game and everybody is exempt from criticism. Laughable.

A shot gun on a 2nd and 1or 2 is insane........by default, you've just created a 2nd and 6 at least. :roll:

As Crash said, nobody is getting fooled by this nonsense.

No wonder Cobb is getting frustrated and is now taking matters into his own hands (he's just too quiet a guy to say anything)

I will watch every game this weekend (I do that anyway) and I will be sure to note when teams are 2nd-and-1 or on the one-yard line and see how many do use a shotgun formation.

What's laughable to me is that the team can come out, play the best game they've played all season, and you still find something to b*tch about. As someone else pointed out, this is the worst part about being a Tiger-Cat fan. We complain when the Cats lose and we complain when the Cats win. Do you want perfection? No team, any week, is perfect. Not the Als, not the Stamps, not the Riders, no one! Last night's game was brilliantly played and brilliantly coached. To watch last night and still find something worthy of criticism is ridiculous.

This all reminds me of a Bill Parcells' press conference when he was the coach of the Dallas Cowboys. They something like 48-7 and he spent the entire time complaining about what the team did wrong. It was sad. It made him look like an fool. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, but when a team goes out and hands another team its hat to the tune of 36-11, take the win and be happy. There will be plenty of time to complain the next time Hamilton loses.

If I read what Crash is saying correctly, we won last night in spite of a poor offensive scheme…probably the D

Its not about last night, its about the fact that its been happening for 14 weeks and this team has had a serious problem converting 2nd and short. Do you actually think i would make that post if we made that error for the first time last night?

As i said, if you have a mobile QB or the possibility of someone stretching the D, it makes a little sense (still not much) but with Glenn we all know he isnt pulling it down and running.... and we dont take shots down field on 2nd and 1... but look no further than the amount of times we've been stopped on 2nd and 1/2 or even 3rd down to see my point.

The offense scored THIRTY SIX POINTS! The run game wasn't as good as it had been the previous three games, but if I recall, the Cats were 1-2 in those games. I'd rather see Cobb get 50 yards and win, then see him get 150 yards and lose. The Esks shred the Cats in the passing game the week before, but this week the D made adjustments to bottle up Fred Stamps. I'm sure Edmonton made similar adjustments to stop Cobb.

I know Mike Gibson is hated by everyone, but at some point this just gets ridiculous. Anything short of the Cats scoring a TD on every play gets this guy killed. How many points will it take for you guys to be happy? Do the Cats have to score 50 a week? 60? What? I don't know many bad offenses that can score 30+ points a week. The last four games the Cats have scored 35, 25, 35 and 36 points. Scheme seems fine to me.

A lot of those 2nd/3rd-and-1 stuffs have come with the Cats in a tight formation with the QB under centre, especially at the goal line. This is why your criticism holds not water with me because they do what you say they should do and still get stuffed. The Cats goal line offense has been putrid for years. That's not a schematic problem, that's a personnel problem.

Handing the ball off. Not repeatably using the QB sneak... its been better lately, but theres no need to hand the ball to Cobb at the 1 yard line IMO.

As a dissenting voice to all concerned...

I think Second and short (less than a yard) should almost always be a play action pass, deep throw. If unsuccessful, then 3rd and short becomes the automatic Quarter-back sneak. Do this often enough, then defences will start looking for it, leaving a draw play or perhaps a screen pass wide open.

This i think would be intelligent play calling, but unfortunately Mike is not paid to think intelligently as our OC is.

But then they'd just complain that he isn't eating up the clock, that we're getting killed on time of possession, that our D's always on the field.

I've seen Porter and Tafralis getting stuffed on the sneak. Less so with Porter, however.

If there is something to complain about, it's the lack of a legitimate fullback on the roster. No disrespect to Darcy Brown, Sam Fournier or anyone else, but the Cats need a Julian Radlein-type that just plows ahead. They don't have a Chris Szarka on the roster, sadly.

I would personally like to see Garrett McIntyre be used more in this situation. I remember him being used successfully in the Labour Day game, although it didn't count as the blew team was off-side anyway and we took the penalty yardage instead. I think the "Big Mac Attack" has every opportunity to become the CFL's "Mini-Fridge". :slight_smile:

Given the fact that we don't have a true fullback in the lineup, McIntyre does seem to be our best option to hammer through the line. The biggest problem with using him as a fullback is the risk of injury, and what that would do to our d-line. For the long term, I'd rather we find a real fullback. Maybe Harris could fill that role, if the rumours of him coming into camp are true. Not quite a fullback, but a bigger body than Cobb or Thigpen. But then, he's an import, and that could mess up the numbers.

I'm not sure that NcIntyre actually made that first down back on Labour Day. The spot looked a bit shy; we might have won a challenge, but I don't know, it was close.

It's not so much the formation as it is the keys you give off when running out of a passing formation you frequently use and your tendencies, IMHO.

I would prefer to have an "I" formation alignment as the base one in that situation because it is simply harder to track a play action fake closer to the LOS than if a fake is done deeper in the backfield. The QB turning his back to the LOS before the fake hides the ball, even if one isn't Danny Mac Houdini-like. Having the running back moving FORWARD towards the LOS accentuates the effect as opposed to the usual Cobb-crossing-ahead-of-Glenn shotgun draw routine.

That is just me, however. I'm not enamoured with predictable spread offenses. It tends to add to my critique of Gibson in that respect.

Be clear though: Gibson, by and large, called a good game last night IMHO. It's difficult to keep up the same kind of production in a back-to-back.

Cue my "howevers"... LOL :wink:

Against inferior opposition and with a solid level of execution, he's a world beater. My take re his record against equivalent or superior opposition is...well...he's choking on Crayolas re playbook and game planning. Our margin against the Montreal-Calgary-Saskatchewan tier of the league is negligible unless our play execution is outstanding. We are predictable to well-coached opponents.

I'm not a scoreboard chaser when it comes to making this assessment. We RARELY score 30+ against the top tier anyway! My issue is that this team cannot get leads enough -- and extend them -- against those elite teams when the game is in the balance.

The level of misdirection, tendency-breaking, effective use of pre-snap motion, crossing routes and rubs, etc. being utilized by Trestman/Milanovich, Dave Dickenson, and Doug Berry ENHANCE the ability of their respective teams to obtain advantages by design and play call to compensate for marginal flaws in execution. Receivers downfield get free more often than with Gibson and his approach. The windows are more often ones where the receiver is hit running with speed than our situation, making for bigger plays.

These teams usually score big against elite competition. They have less stretches of nothingness offensively and far less two-and-outs against that level of opponent.

I guess I'm a little old school when it comes to these things. This team has execution issues in short yardage and the fact we don't really put the fear of the football gods into opponents by how play action is conceived in sandwich-spread offenses and that equals disaster come playoff time.

Good teams have short-yardage plays that they can run like clockwork. Out of MULTIPLE looks and sets. Us? Not so much. It's a problem!

Last night was a display of the kind of sustained effort and intensity that can make this team a legitimate contender. Props to all the coaches and players for the hard work to clean up the mess from the first tilt against Edmonton.

November is coming. We shall see if this result becomes a springboard for greater things when the money is on the line. Gibson and Marshall have to keep working out what works with their respective systems and work on maintaining a high level of execution. Time will tell if we can break through the ceiling we've hit and hang with the big boys.

Oski Wee Wee,

Russ