2nd and Short - Are We Serious?

Points taken. Who is this Harris you refer to though?

(I sit in Box H so I couldn't see the actual spot for the first down. Did anyone else have a better vantage point?)

A.J. Harris. Played for Edmonton in 2008, and BC last year. Not huge, but a bit heavier than Cobb and Thigpen.
Drew mentioned it on The Scratching Post a couple of days ago:

According to a tweet from Edmonton Journal beat reporter Mario Annicchiarico, running back A.J. Harris ia [sic] in Hamilton and is expected to join the Ticats practice squad.

I was watching on the tube, so who knows what the camera angle did to my perspective. But when I watched it, it looked like he might have been stopped short, and the spot definitely looked short of the big yellow line TSN puts up on screen. I was very happy when they announced the offside penalty on Toronto so they wouldn't have to measure.

I agree with Mike. 2nd and short is a free play, a chance to try something long. If the QB doesn't like what he sees, then hand it off.

Here's the shot of the spot on McIntyre's carry from LDC.

They needed to get to the Toronto 28. Looks to me like the spot is at least half a yard short. As I said, I was glad to see the offside call.

And I would like to see him get the ball again. But as the lead back, the d-line and LBs are going to key on him - stop him, and the tail back has nowhere to run. Maybe send him outside on a pitch? Or send him out for a dump pass over the middle?

It wasn't 2nd-and-1, so I'm sure you'll say it doesn't count, but Montreal had 1st-and-goal from the one-yard line and ran shotgun both times. Good enough?

You're kidding me right?
Of course im going to say it doesnt count....because i wouldnt complain if we ran 1st and goal from the 1 in a shotgun with McPherson as my quarterback.

Russ, enjoy the win and dont be negative.

So what do you want exactly? You asked me to watch the games and see other teams that went shotgun on 2nd-and-1. Instead, I found a team that went shotgun TWICE on 1st-and-goal from the one. But that doesn't matter to you because it was another team with other plays? So despite the fact that you asked me to find ANOTHER team (which presumably means that would use OTHER players) that used shotgun on 2nd-and-1, you discount it because they had a different player under centre? OK, whatever, pal. :roll:

Also, it was Calvillo on the field for the second play, not McPherson.

Yes im discounting it because it was still 1st down... and they threw the ball. I have no problem with teams keeping options open on 1st and 1, spreading it out, etc. but when we do it on 2nd and 1 and rarely if ever throw the football, its a little different.... and i suspect you know that, but are ignoring that fact to make your point... i get it, you're ok with going shotgun on 2nd and 1 with Glenn out there, im not... move on already.

so to sum it all up here .... your complaining that the team is being too predictable by lining up in the shotgun on 2nd and 1 ..and your answer to that is to ..."always run the QB sneak" ... is that not being just as predictable

You are the one who asked me to keep an eye open during the rest of the games, and I did so. I was happy to have you make your statement and move one, but you decided to "challenge" me to find a team that went shotgun on 2nd-and-1. I did that and you just don't happen to like the findings. I realize that I tweaked your original inquiry, but I figured you wouldn't be such a stickler. Apparently you were being extremely specific.

RYCK: That sums it up pretty nicely. The same people who complain that the offense lacks any creativity are the same ones who complain when they don't do what every other team does.

Let me get this straight, the title of the thread is 2nd and Short.... all of my comments are about 2nd and 1, you point out a 1st and 1 situation.... and im being too specific.

If we "always" ran the sneak on 2nd and 1, and again on 3rd and 1... i would argue the chances of making the 1st down are pretty good. But i could be wrong.

again .. you just argued about predictability and your answer to that was to be predictable ...
thats what i didn't get

Did you read the part after that where I said I tweaked you specifications? And you're splitting hairs on 1st-and-1 and 2nd-and-1. If we all agree that 3rd-and-1 is a go-for-it down under most circumstances, why does it matter what the team does on 2nd-and-1? I say that because I know your response will be, "On 1st-and-1 they have more leeway because they have another down." They have slightly less leeway on 2nd-and-1, but it's not that much less.

But you clearly are being very specific, so we'll disregard the two 1st-and-1 tries on the goal line (where you'd think pounding it in would be an even higher priority) from a shotgun formation from Montreal. We have one more game, so we'll see if anything happens between BC and Winnipeg. Of course, I fully expect that if one of those teams do go shotgun on 2nd-and-1, that you'll just say both BC and Winnipeg are worse than the Cats so we shouldn't be doing anything similar to those two teams.

You guys can argue all you want. All I know is that when it is second and 1 for the Ticats, no matter where on the field it is, I cringe. I would rather second and 4-6 because I know Glen is going to the air and most likely to Sticky Stala for a conversion. Something is wrong with that thinking. 2nd and 1 should be automatic but it's not with the Ticats. I blame the OC for that because we certainly have the talent to get 1 yard 99 times out of 100 tries.
I don't care why we don't get it. I do care why it does not seem to ever get fixed.

What? Of all the criticism that I have read about Gibson this one takes the cake. If "we certainly have the talent" to get it done, then they should get it done, regardless of the play call. The Cats have had a problem with short yardage for years, long before Mike Gibson was brought in.

Crash: BC ran a 2nd-and-1, but didn't sneak. They ran Robertson, not Lulay. Happy now?

Because in the situation im describing we turned it into 3rd and 3? Its hard to turn a QB sneak on 2nd and 1 into 3rd and 3... but from the gun we've had it happen on more than one occasion. Now, if we actually threw the ball on 2nd and 1 in an attempt to catch them off guard, and used the sneak on 3rd down, id be fine with it too, but since we run the inside hand off (and all of the fans around me in the stands are able to yell it out before it happens) forgive me for getting frustrated when i see shotgun and can say "handoff, stuffed, punt"

We can get one yard, but, as others have said, when you start five yards back and everyone knows it's going to Cobb right up the middle, it gets a little more difficult. That's not the players, that's to OC's play calling.
But you go ahead and blame the players if it makes you feel better.

The players are the ones who are paid to make plays. The coaches call plays they think will be successful. Neither group is perfect, but this constant crucifying of Mike Gibson has reached ridiculous levels. Did the Cats not score 36 points this week? Did they not score 35, 25 and 35 the three weeks before that? Seems to me that the offense is humming along just fine. Also, Cobb didn't seem to have a difficult time bumping the run to the outside on the two-point convert on Friday. Good players make plays. If the players are as good as you think they are, they should be able to make plays regardless of the call. If a player busts up a play in the backfield, that means the defense is doing its job.

Crash: Winnipeg ran a 2nd-and-1, but didn't sneak. They ran Bernard up the gut. He took the ball a good three or four yards behind the line of scrimmage. Scored a TD too. Happy now?