500 team

the tiger cats are a good 500 team and that`s all. Glen has not won the big game when needed and when i watch the games the coach is an average coach on a average team and no more .the offence is still to predictable no change from the time the coach has been here just a 500 team

The stats obviously don't lie and yes, right now we are a 500 team. However, learning how to win in big games doesn't happen overnight...It is a process! As a fan, I too get very frustrated but I truly believe in the players and coaches we have...We have all seen flashes of domination from all three phases of our team this season...I have watched every CFL game and have not seen that in every team! I think the team needs to stick together and keep working hard and as a fan, I will keep cheering and reserve final judgement until the end of the season.

It seems like we have spurts of brilliance and then stupid plays kill us (Cobb fumbling). I really did think that there was gonna be a story-book ending to that game, so I hope this isn’t indicative of Glenn’s ability to win the big one. Because really, we’re .500, but who have we beat?

We seem to leave an awful lot of points on the field.

I’m pretty okay with out defence, but, again, there are lapses of mind-boggling play. Late in the first half on Saturday, I could not believe how we were giving up the deep ball. At that point of the game, we could have pulled every one back and let them get 7 or 8 yards on every play…they still would’ve run out of time. Instead, it turns into a big downer going into the dressing room.

And, unfortunately, we simply can’t rely on our kicking game. That leaves a pretty big hole – and means the offence has to push the ball 15 yards farther than everyone else does.

Sorry for harping back to the 'old' days, but was a time when if we had a 15 point lead, it was basically game over . Our defense did the rest.
But those days are long gone. Now, we need a 21-point cushion to be safe.
Having said that, I really have to wonder about the coaching. How much do coaches interact with players before a play is called? Do they warn them about making bonehead plays, like stretching the ball from the 5 yard line? I know COBB wanted so badly to get the TD, but players that stretch the ball usually do it from the 1-yard line, not the 5 . That fumble was likely a 14-point difference. If he would have been stopped at the 5, we probably could have got 7, or 3 points out of it. Instead, we got 0, and SASK went down the field for a TD.
Do you see the point differential?
.
The final stats show that SASK got 17 points on turnovers; we got 0. That is the difference between winning & losing.
And it all points back to the coaching.
We will remain a .500 team till end of season.
Ditto for the playoff run...

:thdn: :thdn: :thdn:

You CAN'T be serious! The players are professionals that have been playing football since childhood! The coaches don't need to warn them to not make "bonehead plays", they need to put them in the best positions to succeed! Of course, several players made mistakes, but...As far as the D goes and the big play at the end of the half, the D was set up correctly...Neither the coaches nor the players can account for a ref taking out a DB leaving a receiver wide open! As far as our O and kicking game goes, the play called on 2nd down was to a WIDE OPEN WR who if he makes an EASY catch, has a 1st down leading to at worst, a MUCH shorter FG...While I agree our K is struggling at home with kicks over 40 yds (Not gimmes for ANY kicker BTW), he is perfect from 35 and in. As far as Cobb's reach goes, obviously it didn't work out but he was just trying to get more yardage...I'm QUITE certain the coaches don't teach that but rather, discourage it!

Yes we gave up a lot of big plays on defense. The secondary was picked apart simply because Durant had too much time to throw.
IMO lack of consistent pressure by the line made our DB's look bad.

We're really missing a big presence up the middle (Darryl Adams where are you right now?).

Bottom line if we don't turn the ball over we win that game and no one is whining.

The fact of the matter is the secondary was just down right brutal. And tighter initial coverage would have would have given the Dline that extra second that would have made a difference. So, either we dont have the right personell (Obie), or the defensive schemes and philosophy are the problem (Marshall).Some one needs to be accountable.

Yeah the secondary was bad, but I still maintain they were made to look bad cause Durant had all day to throw.

Sask made some pretty incredible catches as well in tight coverage.

We had no pressure and LOTS of blown coverage.Allowed 14 yard passes with ease as well as 60 yard passes with ease.Total failure on defense and with ball security.

Before we go blaming Marshall, lets remember that we have a key injury in the secondary with Bradley missing and that Bo Smith was his replacement. Before we say the sky is falling lets try to keep things in perspective.

Do I think this team is a Grey Cup champion? No. Do I think we're a playoff team? Yes. We need to fix some aspects of the game (red zone production, running, not fumbling) and we need to put the players in a position to win. So far the defense has kept us in every game we've played with the exception of the last one, so really they shouldn't be under the microscope here.

What has Marcel and Gibson's offense produced, except for jack-squat?

In his post game interview, Coach Clapper pointed out an interesting "500" stat:
This season, in games when the number of Ti-Cat turnovers is equal to or less than the opposition's number of turnovers, the Cats are 6 and 0. When the Cat's have turned the ball over more than the opposing team, they are 0 and 6.

That stat should not come as a surprise to anyone and would expect the same to be true of most teams.

Losing when your team has more turnovers, I agree should not come as a surprise. Winning every time your team's number of turnovers is equal to or less than the opposition's is the part that might be considered a surprise. If, as you suggest, it was" true of most teams," then anytime teams have an equal number of turnovers in a game, they would both have to win that game.

Actually, the fumble was a 7-point difference. It’s not like Saskatchewan picked it up and ran it back for a touchdown. They got the ball on their 25 and worked it down for their touchdown. And what would have happened had Cobb not fumbled? We probably would have scored - touchdown or field goal, doesn’t matter - and then kicked off. Saskatchewan would have then gotten the ball around their 30 (I think we had the wind at that point, right?). Why would the results of that drive be any different?

What kind of ridiculous thing is that to say?! No one said anything about any time/every time except you...Hence the use of the word MOST! How can you possibly deny that winning or losing the turnover battle USUALLY determines winning or losing the game?!

I don't. The comment from the coach, which in fact was incorrect, suggested (to me, at least) that HAM, in addition to winning all the games when they won the turnover battle, won all games when the two team had an equal number of turnovers.

I went through the stats and, in fact, HAM has not played a single game, this year, with an equal number of turnovers. So, my expressed thought isn't applicable. The coach was incorrect in his comment because Calgary turned the ball over 3 times to Hamilton's 2 in beating the Cats on July 10th.

What has Marcel and Gibson's offense produced, except for jack-squat?

Wasn't Marshall looking for a head coaching job??