3rd Qtr.[quote="DisplacedCatsFan, post:1, topic:78625"]
.....It's inexcusable to be up by 17 frickin' points and lose. ....
They were up by 21 at the time they should have kicked a 19-yd.FG to extend the lead to three 8-point TDs. 8 minutes into the 3rd quarter. The fact they didn't was just plain dumb coaching, and the game's turning point.
When you're up 24-3 at half time and you somehow find a way to lose the game...
Either you played way over your heads in the first half or you were exposed for what you really are in the 2nd....
The quick release and slants in the first half ( even for most of the possessions in the 2nd that didn't go 3 and out) worked and kept the Calgary D on its toes. Again, it's fairly clear to me that Evans, like a lot of QB's, seems to panic under pressure and tends to overthrow. this leads to the tipped balls going for INT's.
We have no appreciable running game because Condell's Offensive philosophy is to use it as an afterthought , if at all. This is constantly one of my major issues with his game planning.
The INT Evans threw in the end zone was inexcusable and poorly read. the inability of the O-Line to drive block at key points in the game was evident...Again!!! This goes back to the lack of a running game at all by Condell.
The Defence, in the 2nd half, went completely to sleep and it looked like Calgary simply took our playbook from the 1st half and utilized Ins and Slants to get receivers in space. The D-Line, which played very well in Saskatchewan, could not generate consistent pressure on Mitchell at all tonight. Couple that with poor Secondary play, and you get Calgary proving we played over our heads in the 1st half...
Going forward , I wonder if this is the O-line combination we'll be using? I don't expect Condell to utilize the running game ,so, I expect a lot more timing patterns and getting Evans out of the pocket deliberately...
You mean like how they learned from having double digit leads in the 4th quarter last year against Montreal and then again against Toronto that they managed to somehow give away ? or perhaps you're talking about the double digit lead they had in last years Grey Cup which they also unbelievably barfed up in spectacular fashion ?
Is this the biggest comeback Ticats have ever allowed? Like, ever?
Is there any lead we can be comfortable with? Not 24 points, obviously. How about 27 ... 30 ... 35?
Will any Eastern team beat any Western team this season?
Did anyone figure out why we chose to kick to start the second half, after CAL chose the side? Conventional wisdom says to start the half with the ball. End result was CAL getting one additional possession. Turns out that mattered - quite a bit.
Could it be that there is something we are all missing about HAM's halftime routine? Couple of examples (speculation only): (a) someone hands the other team's coaches our entire game plan during the half, or (b) our players all take turns whacking each other on the head with their helmets.
First-half Evans looked like 2019 Evans again: confident, free wheeling. However, he had two fumbles (a flukey one which was lost, and another recovered by our new left tackle) and two interceptions (see next point) for the second week in a row. This really has to stop.
The OT interception was clearly STE's fault, as he turned his head to look upfield before the ball hit his hands. That said, he would have been tackled immediately, several yards short of the first down. In other words, at that moment with victory in our reach, we were playing for the tie.
Our offensive line was obviously better than last week - the QB had time to throw (1 sack vs. 8 last week), and we had somewhat of a running game (65 yards). Could definitely get better still (e.g. QB sneaks), but I saw progress. On the other hand, I also wondered why CAL opted not to mimic SSK's wildly successful high-pressure defence from last week.
I thought we outplayed CAL on special teams. Stopped their fake punt, and Wood's final punt return set us up nicely for what could have been the game-winning field goal. And of course CAL sent out too many men and turned our FG into a TD.
I still don't know whether our defensive schemes change when we have a lead, or our defensive players relax when we have a lead, or both. You know who knows? The coaches know. Not that they will tell us.
Bonus: It was nice to see a game relatively light on penalties. Eight in total. Contrast to Valessi's crew in OTT last night, with 19 penalties making the game borderline unwatchable at times.
Now that's funny. Imagine this place if he was still here.
Right after the sequence in the 3rd quarter when the Cats turned it over twice in a row inside the 15 yard line, I told all my seatmates that the Cats were now going to blow it.
Sure enough Mitchell marches 103 yards down the field to score a TD making it 24-10. The comeback was set in motion.
The Cats had two stellar chances to go up 31-3 and seal the game but ultimately choked.
The defence has to take a lot of the blame in this loss also. Completely porous in the 2nd half. We've given a lot of praise to these DBs but lately they have been losing many of the 50/50 ball battles against the recievers.
#7. I never understood this kind of playcall. You need 10 yards but instead throw a 5 yard completion to a reciever with 2 Linebackers draped over him.
#8. The O-Line definitely looked much better this week in protecting Dane. So was that because of an improvement in play or was it simply because Calgary has a weaker pass rush than the Riders? I guess we'll find out next week in Winnipeg.
#10. Last year during some 2nd half defensive collapses it was Masoli who was blamed relentlessly for not sustaining drives late in the game. This we were told ultimately caused our defence to tire out. So now with Masoli out of the picture we are still having the same problem. I don't think the defence was tired. Orlondo and Washington are supposedly two defensive gurus and need to figure this out.