You can't blame Porter on that one or the coach for calling the play. It was Hickman that let Willis go right by him. Porter never had a chance. That was just a case of poor execution.
I agree that it was Hickman who blew this one. Hick lined up at left TE and allowed Willis an inside lane to Porter. It begs a couple of questions. First, why is Hickman in on short yardage. The answer obviously is that we have only one backup oline on the 42 and in short yardage we need another big body.
I guess the real question is why only one extra oline guy? We have had a couple of occasions this year when Smith has had to play significant minutes due to the injury of one of either Jiminez or Johnson. What's the plan if a second oline goes down? Hickman? I think we are playing with fire here. Adding one more oline to the 42 gives us flexibility on O with a double tight end package, more beef on short yardage, and most importantly, insurance for that second injury if, God forbid, that happens.
I also disagree with you on this Captain (and agree with Ottawacat and Displaced Cats Fan); Porter had no chance on this. Hickman simply out right missed his assignment. The rusher was practically in the backfield a split second after the snap. In my opinion it was good call; too bad we didn't see it develop further. It always comes down to everyone executing their assigments.
Ok, gotta have another look at this one.
It's at the 32:41 mark or 1:45 on the game clock
Upon further review, yeah it was a quick sack, but there was that split second... I'll call it too close too call and bottom line... "stuff" happens.
And yes, Hickman did blow it for sure.
Was the sack unavoidable? I dunno, but given that particular situation, the avoidance of the sack has to be top priority, and everything else second.
You can see it at 32:42 of this video: http://watch.tsn.ca/cfl-news-and-highlights/#clip523174
You will see how little time Porter had, and how Hickman let Willis slip through. It looked to me like there was no way that Porter could have seen that he had to throw it away and to look for a place past the line of scrimmage where there were no WPG players and then to throw it there. IMHO, you can't blame Porter for that.
And I did not like the play call. Considering Porter didn't get an FD on 2nd and 1 earlier, I thought there would not be use of that "free play" by us this game.
EDIT: I see that you saw that for yourself, Kirk. Anyone who wants to be sure who to blame can take a look at that video.
Yeah, you guys changed my mind. I think you're right. :thup:
Upon further review, the call in my mind has been over ruled.
Can not blame the QB Porter for the lack of blocking, he protected the ball, which is all that would be expected from a NFL qb in the same circumstances!!!!
Glad I was one of those who threw the "challenge flag" then.
And someone changing their mind and admitting their initial opinion may not have been right? Now that is a breath of fresh air. :thup:
Obviously the Bombers had undercover spies at our practice and knew they were going to try this exact play on a second and short at that area of the field.
I don't know when they showed it (must have been later in the game) but there was a replay that showed Porter also bobbled the snap a little which didn't help things either.
I'm going by memory here, but there was a huge difference between the two situations. On the first one, it was 2nd and a long yard, maybe a yard and a half, and Porter came up short by less than a foot; he got the 3rd and inches fairly easily. On the second 2nd and short, it was under a foot to go, so an incompletion leaves it at 3rd and inches, which Porter had already demonstrated that he could get. Too bad Hickman used his best D-line tactics to avoid the opposing player. :oops:
I will definitely be watching this game again a few times. Maybe one of the run-throughs, I'll look for the "many times" Winnipeg got shafted by the refs, as some on a different thread have claimed.
Actually, now that I look back, there wasn't a claim that Winnipeg got shafted on penalties, only that they got as many or more than Hamilton. I apologize for misrepresenting some of your team's fans' comments.
On the other hand, just because you had as many calls go against your team doesn't mean they weren't deserved. I suspect that there weren't quite as many bad calls going against you as went against us.
Still doesn't excuse our loss. Very disappointed in our play.
It looks like you're right about that first 2nd and 1 situation being more like 2nd and 1.5, as you can see on the play starting at 5:18 here: http://watch.tsn.ca/cfl-news-and-highlights/#clip523174
And then after skipping ahead in that video to 32:41, it was definitely 2nd and less than a yard. So it seems your recollection of what happened may have been better than mine.
I know what they say about hindsight, but I did not like that call. 2nd and 1 is not necessarily a "free play" as we saw. (And that was a good line about Hickman.) What's really a free play is when the D takes a penalty, the QB knows it, and is free to do one of those "high risk, high reward" things, as there is no actual risk.
It seems we're going breaking down game film here in this thread. But I suppose going over game film is what you do even if you're just an armchair coach.
The officials did a good job IMO. Both teams were sloppy but I didn’t see any penalties that were called on either team that weren’t deserved.
Thanks BYF for the easy link to TSN On-Demand and the timing on where to look.
Reviewing the fake sneak it looks like Stala was the intended receiver on a fly, post or slant in route from the inside right and may initially not have been as open as Porter expected, judging by the QB's slight hesitation as he looked right. Willis hit him less than 3 seconds after the snap.
You may be correct on that, but there were definitely a number of non-calls I remember that should have been penalties: no yards, PI, holding, holding, holding, holding,..., all in Winnipeg's favour; I don't remember us getting away with any, but I will be looking for that. Maybe you could point out a few that you noticed?
There was a no-yards call that was missed and there likely were a few other calls against both teams that were missed. It happens every game. Going from the penalty totals, the officials were calling everything they saw since both teams took almost twice as many penalties in that game as they usually do.
For penalties like holding, I believe fans have a much broader interpretation of what constitutes holding than the officials do so there are always plays where fans think a player was held but there was no flag. As for PI calls, there were a couple of plays where receivers for both teams thought they were interferred with but there was no call which IMO was the correct call by the officials.
Other than the one no-yards penalty not being called, I can't think of any plays where I thought the Bombers were lucky not to get called for something but I also can only recall maybe one or two times when I thought the Ticats got away with something. I'd have to re-watch the game to refresh my memory on those.
You seem to be correct that I have a different opinion on what constitutes holding from the officials. In my opinion, holding is where a player grabs onto an opposing player outside his own shoulder pads, or from behind, or hooks his arm around an opposing player, preventing that player from making a play. After watching games like this one, I have no idea what the officials consider holding.
By my definition, however, Hamilton got away with two holding non-calls (Q3 4:42 rem., Q4 0:31 rem.). Winnipeg, on the other hand, got away with seven (Q1 5:54, Q1 0:32, Q1 0:01, Q2 9:08, Q2 7:45, Q3 14:04, Q4 2:02).
Other than those two holding calls, I saw one possible infraction that Hamilton got away with (Q3 14:19 - possible PI by Hinds). But Winnipeg? Here you go:
- Q1 9:40 - No call on movement because "the player was set", according to Proulx. Three Winnipeg players moved before the snap, and they all looked set to me. But whatever. No impact on game.
- Q2 2:35 - Missed no yards call. Three players inside five yards. Would have been a 15 yard penalty. Field goal attempt five plays later would have been from closer in, and even with the procedure call, they would still have been able to go for a field goal instead of punting.
- Q2 0:30 - Kanya blocked from behind, springing Johnson for his return. [debatable] No impact on game.
- Q3 13:40 - Another missed no yards call. Two Winnipeg players inside five yards. No impact on game.
- Q4 3:06 - Missed PI preventing Kelly from catching pass. Would have been first down, allowing drive to continue. Even if Hamilton had stalled at thast point, they would have been inside Medlock's range to tie the game. Game changer. (Note that TSN never showed the replay of that play when they came back from the timeout.)
So not a huge imbalance, but the two missed calls in the final three minutes, the missed PI and the missed hold on Smith going for the tackle on Denmark (2:02), both affected Hamilton's ability to tie the game or possibly pull ahead. Not as big an impact as Hamilton's screw-ups (the pick-six in Q1, the missed FG, William's fumble on the one-foot line), but still an impact.
All in all, I thought it was a great game to watch (other than the final score). Big plays both ways. Very entertaining.
We'll get you the next two times we meet this year. In October, and again in November. :rockin: