6 carries for Cobb ??

I didn’t to see the alot of this game and i know we were behind for most of it, but only 6 carries for Cobb doesn’t make sense to me - Was he just that bad ? Or did we just give up running th ball to try and score quick ??

We have a decent defense, but it works partly due to the solid running game that lets them get some good rest between posessions.

Being down 23-0 and having no first downs in the first half tends to impact negatively on the run option. Burp.

agreed - but they came back very quickly when the second half started. I guess what I am driving at, and again I am cleary a newbie when it comes to the Ti-Cats, but it seems from what I have seen so far this team has been succesful because they have been able to move the ball (and score) on the ground - this helps to open up the passing game especically with game breaker talent at the receiver position. Plus it really helps get the defense the rest they need to play all 4QS. Since we have some inconsistency from our QBs, this run dominant option can be especially important.

Seems like once we got back in it early in the 3rd, they never really went back to some of the more 'bread and butter' plays that have helped them win all season.

Again, I wasn't able to see much of the game, and I very new in my understanding of the CFL and how the Ti-Cats operate ... Just an observation, not trying to start a riot or anything.

Good points Winterland…Our QB’s will struggle at times… Porter is still new to the game, he has the potential, and that is the VERY reason Glenn is here… Glenn filled in admirably, barring the 2nd Q he did awesome IMO in the 3rd and it seems the wind (and the refs) became our nemesis in the 4th but all in all at least this year, we don’t fold up our tents in the 1st Q and go home… now we like to bite back!!

Despite being down 23-0 we should've been running the ball because the passing game was doing squat. Some may say you have to pass in that situation, but we all know what Cobb is capable of, he's just one block away from a game changing play. I said they just have to forget the score and trying to make a quick come back, and start establishing a game plan around Deandra'. I think we would've had just as much success if not more with the pass (the little bit we had with Glenn) if the running game was established.

Yeah, and if we can get some more consistency from the QB (and the o-line), this should really be a very productive offense. Very solid running game and a couple of receivers that can change the game in a single play. Cleary we aren't a point where we can regularly move the ball through the air - especially when the other team is defending against the pass, that's tough on a young QB especially. If we can keep pounding the ball on the ground, that should put more of the Ds focus on #14 and help 1. open up our receivers 2. make the progression for the QB i bit easier.

Tonight was a stumble for a young team that isn't firing on all cylinders yet, but I think has the tools to be a force to be reckoned with down the road. And I have only mentioned the offense, but the defense has play well at points during each of the games I have seen.

I can't recall the number of times they faked a handoff to cobb and tried a pass(incomplete).
They should handoff more to Cobb, especially on 1st down.
Screen passes to Cobb would also be a good outlet.
At least they have the sense to handoff to cobb in the red zone...he really has a nose for the goal line.
Exploit him. Please.

Good point. Who do you think you're fooling with play action when you only actually ran the ball 6 times? The offensive gameplan was the fatal flaw tonight.

The Riders were keying on Cobb early in the game, what looked like a play action might have been an option that Porter was pulling away due to what he saw. I still think running Cobb more would have worked out better for the Cats, the Riders haven't been very good at stopping the run due to their goofy formations. They were also down a starting MLB today.

Indeed, Dust. The Ticat penchant for abandoning their best running weapons in CLOSE games over the years (Corey Holmes being the most recent blatant example) has been a mystery to me. The game could very well have tilted had Cobb been more of a factor, especially in the first half when the offense clearly needed a spark.

Congrats on the win!

Oski Wee Wee,


Thank you sir,

Many of us out here will be rooting on the Cats the rest of the way (save one game)! You guys deserve a great team.

...and only 2 carries in the 1st half.
They should have been running the ball more early before it got out of hand.
Instead they were running play action on the first two possessions without ever trying to run.
It seemed like they decided they would throw the ball in the 1st quarter to take advantage of the wind, but Porter seemed to be easing up on the ball and hoping the wind would take it forward for him.
It was like both QBs never even warmed up to get used to the wind.

I thought the same thing this morning, that the Offensive game plan for the Cats is very predictable and completely void of creativity.

Saskatchewan ran some interesting plays and always had the Cats D thinking. I thought both D's played well but the difference was the offensive gameplan of the Riders.

IMHO Ticats O seem,s to still be in the D-mac era, Problem is there was Only one D-mac, Ticats need to get their QB,s scrambling after 4 steamboats and the recievers need secondary routes , some imagination on kick returns would not hurt either!! Kind of surprised that Obie,s team has not tried some trick plays ?

Could be the Sask defense is better than anyone is giving them credit for…but I think we’ve gone deep 5 times all season. According to the brass, the opposing defenses haven’t been giving us the long ball. With the lone exception of the Bruce touchdown, did we go deep at any time in this game? To make matters worse, we had zero or close to zero second down conversions. Does this mean the defense wasn’t giving us the short routes either? No long routes, no short routes, no hand-offs to Cobb…pretty well sums up the offense on the day. Thank goodness Knowlton blocks that punt to make the game respectable. Either the offense has actually gotten worse or the game plan was the fatal flaw tonight!

our offence is not necessarily getting worse but it's not getting better and defences are getting better. This vanilla offence, the unwillingness or inability of Porter to go long and the inability to get the ball into our playmaker's hands (Bruce, Cobb and P-Rod) points to coaching. I sure hope Bellefuille is not getting his hands into our offence too much because he might be a good head coach but he is a brutal offensive co-ordinator.

I didn't see the game, but I suspect they might have bed using COBB as a blocker, to block off the tremendous Pass rush the Riders were having.
Or perhaps, they were too worried about a BAD handoff to the RB, with a wet ball, or that the ball might come loose on a carry, for the same reason - too slippery on contact.
I don't like to 2nd guess the coaching staff; so I will give them the benefit of the doubt....

:cowboy: :cowboy: :cowboy:

It's got to be easier to hand a wet ball off than to throw and catch it, no?

In any event, with the same wet ball, Wes Cates had 17 carries for about 110 yards.

I agree that in bad weather you should try to run more, but the reality is that Cobb didn't do much with the ball on the occasions he did get it. Similarly, as TSN pointed out, Cobb didn't produce much against Edmonton until they let him break one outside on his big run to the one near the end of that game. Against a better defence like Sask, handing off with the likelihood of only a two yard gain and simply hoping the defence will blow their assignments and allow him to bounce outside for a big gain doesn't seem like sound strategy. Especially now that defences have started to develop a book on Cobb.

Besides, in weather like that, you expect the defence to key against the run since the weather hurts the passing game already. In those circumstances, you want a guy with size and power like Cates, Reynolds, or a healthy Lumsden to blast directly into the line with a decent chance for 6+ yard gains. Much has also been made already of the gimmicky things Sask's front seven do that make life difficult for the O-line. Again, you're better off in that situation if you have the type of back who hits the hole fast but can still muscle his way through a crowd. None of our three top backs bring that type of play to the table.