Coach cost us the game

Give up the safety -- They score a TD anyways ( 9 pts )

Don't give up the safety ( 7 pts ) -- Calgary ends the game with 2 less points ..........

Suitor and the rest of the jack### idiots that supported the rule change destroyed the safety-net that used to be there and the strategy that goes with it. Time to move on from the denial to the acceptance phase. Stubbornness from the fact that they managed to get the ridiculous rule change pushed through is costing us. We need to stop trying to show them that the rule change isn't working and giving up safeties anyways -- the points are too important.

I agree that the safety situation is complete BS, but from a coaching Point Of View, it was not there fault, If the D would have stepped up, only 2 points given, not 9, how can the coach predict what is going to happen on the next drive?

I have been a huge Miller fan but if you had to pick a hickup on his coaching it would be not going for td with 7 seconds left in half.
I would not go as far as calling our coach chicken (like Dunigan did)just too cautious
The play before which almost being picked off scared the bejeusus out of him

I know its easy to make decisions after the fact but after Calgary got called for phyramiding I would have went for 2 to win the game as a tie didnt do much for us

Hold on, now. This hindsight judgment is a little phony.

  1. Had we punted from our endzone, odds are Calgary takes possession somewhere around our 40. As it turned out, after the safety and the kick off, Calgary scrimmaged around their own 35. That's a good result. The fact that Calgary marched 75 yards after that doesn't alter the decision.

  2. Going for the 2 point convert after the pyramiding call - it was not worth the risk. Had we not got it and lost, we'd be in third place right now, not first, and having to win one more game than BC from the remaining three to pass them. Not great odds. However, a tie is the same as a win as against everyone in the league but Calgary. Given that, you can't throw that away on a do or die play. That's the same reason Calgary never hesitated going for 1 after they scored the equalizer TD in the 2nd OT.

  3. I will agree with taking another shot at the end of the first half. Seven seconds was lots of time for two plays. They could have spread the field, and tried to isolate someone on a deep ball that is either caught or incomplete. I agree the play before probably had a large influence on the decision. And, taking sure points on the road in a close game is understandable. But I can appreciate the criticism here far more than the first two.

Miller is too conservative.. he tends to have a lack of spontaneity and creativity..

he should have had 1 last crack at the endzone in the first half there.. spread it out and let Durant go for the draw.. odds were in favour of him scoring..

he needs to take a few more risks occasionally. He seems to be too scared to try somedays.

It's a percentage call - you believe your D will prevent them from scoring. Doesn't always work. But I think they should change the rule so that when you give up a safety you have 2 options: 1) same as it is now or 2) Receive the ball after giving up 7 points with the kickoff being done as if a TD had been scored.

Well, we lead the league in pass plays over 30 yards. We've run two (or maybe 3 I can't remember) fake punts in the last five weeks. We run a high-risk pressure defence designed to create sacks and turnovers. None of those traits are exactly the hallmark of someone who is too conservative. We were conservative on that play, but it's not fair to extrapolate that into a conclusioon about a a season-long characteristic, especially when the majority of evidence points otherwise.

That should read "after giving up 5 points."

Sask has given up 5 safeties this year:

Game 4 ( EDM ) - Play 132
Next Drive: TD
( Turned over on downs twice late in the game trying to get TD -- Those could have been FGs / Singles )
Final Score: 38-32 Loss

Game 6 ( BC ) - Play 62
Next Drive: FG
Final Score: 35-20 Loss

Game 11 ( EDM ) - Play 88
Next Drive: Missed FG
( Final play was within field goal range, but we needed the TD and failed )
Final Score: 31-27 Loss

Game 14 ( TOR ) - Play 114
Next Drive: FG
Final Score: 32-22 Win

Game 15 ( CGY ) - Play 51
Next Drive: TD
Final Score 44-44 Tie

If the safety isn't preventing the other team from scoring on their next drive -- Punt the friggin' ball.

I think teams across the league are starting to figure it out that giving up the safety hasn't prevented the other team from at least scoring 3. You kickoff so deep the other team almost always gets solid field position near midfield.

I also thought we should have ran 1 more play before half, there was 7 seconds which is more than enough time given that the clock was already stopped and they could take their time before the snap of the ball.

It was a bad move not going for it with 7 seconds to go, lots of time to get 2 plays out, i really question Millers decisions many times

I think those fake punts are not his call. He gave Borham the freedom to go.

I have seen it from the start of his coaching time here is that he's less likely to gamble than other coaches.

The way I see it is if he had gambled & lost there would be even more people here saying the coach cost us the game.

Not scoring more points than the other team cost us the game IMO.

The safety issue? Tough call the way it is now. The way I look at it is it's kinda like asking your offense for the 3rd & short except your asking the defense to come up with 2 big plays.

Should of went for the extra play at the end of the half, but OTOH if you lose the 3 points there you lose the game.

oh well, let's move on to B.C.!