Concerned about a few coaching decisions....

  1. In the first half, it was 3rd and a long 1. Why did we line up in the "I" formation and hand the ball to Lumsden 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage? What about a QB Keeper? or a RB or FB dive? (meaning you can get the back the ball right at the line of scrimmage and let them fall forward over the offensive line.) Or you punt the ball. I don't understand this call and we got burned on this play.

  2. On the play where Pierce got hurt, Why did we accept the holding penalty, thus giving them another chance to pick up the first down? Our defence had stopped them and it would've been 3rd and 6, but for some reason we sent them back and made it 2nd and 16.

Now obviously I sort of understand the decision, because Jackson was coming in off the bench and a 2nd and long with a cold QB is something you should be able to defend. (Which we did. But what if he somehow picked up the first down? Why give them another chance?)

Perhaps the thinking was to take the 10 yards and move them out of field goal position, but correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they already out of field goal position? The were around the 50.

  1. Why on earth would we go for two points with 21 seconds on the clock and trailing by 4 points? Yes, I understand the game is very close to being over and it would be a long shot to get the onside kick and then move the ball into range and kick a tying field goal.....but shouldn't we have at least gave ourselves a chance for that to happen?

By going for two points and not getting it at that point, essentially we ended the game even before we tried the onside kick.

I'm a supporter of Taaffe and our coaching staff but these are things that should be automatic in my mind. Especially the single point at the end of the game.....not the right call.

Agree Charlie made some bad Calls..
He get the goat horns Tonight

I was wondering about #2 myself.

the going for 2 points at the end of the game was a terrible call and by missing it and actually coming up with the onside kick would have meant a hail mary td to win the game.
footbal 101.

Agreed.....I was thinking to myself, I hope we don't get this onside kick now. Otherwise I would've fired my TV out the window.

Just plain terrible.

#1, the one play I wouldn't do is the QB sneak with that long of a yard to go. But yeah, a quick-hitting hand-off probably would have been better. Or play-action and let Maas run around the corner.

In the case of #2 it was definitely to push them out of field goal range. I don't remember the exact yard line but I'm sure it would have been in the range of a 45-47 yarder.

#3, yeah, bizarre.

#1....agree. Do something to fool them but don't run the ball right up the middle after handing it off 5 yards in the backfield. That's the point I was trying to make.

#2....They punted the ball from their own 50 yard-line after the sack. So was it a near 20-yard loss on the sack? It makes sense if they had to push them out of field goal range and I will accept that....I was thinking they were already out of range though. (Anyways, who could tell with that terrible camera work on TSN....oh and it might also have been nice for Chris and Glenn to actually talk about what's happening at that time in the game instead of flashing back to interviews that were done before the game.)

Ok, to end the confusion on this one, I just went and found that part of the game.

The line of scrimmage on the holding penalty was the 35. So it would have been a 42 yard field goal.
The penalty pushes them back to the 45, Jackson throws an incomplete pass, which means McCallum is standing on his own 50 to punt.

Yup.....just saw it myself.

So the right call was made to push them back out of field goal range. Again, something that TSN should have mentioned at the time.

Assume Charlie decides to kick the convert,
and the Ticats recover the onside kick

and make 2 or 3 big plays and
TIE the game with a field goal.

The game goes into an over-time shootout.

Charlie may have felt that our Defence
was hanging on for dear life near the end
and B.C.'s Offence was making plays.

and that our Defence wouldn't have enough left
to win a possible three possession shootout.

On the other hand, with a 2 point conversion
and a successful onside kick recovery

we might have enough left in the tank
to make 2 or 3 plays and WIN the game

with that same 3 point field goal that
you would have had him try earlier.

It is true that kicking the convert
etc. etc. may have given us a TIE
and 1 point in the standings

but lots of coaches feel strongly that
a TIE is 'like kissing your sister'

and feel compelled to go for the WIN.

I agree with #2...I would have preferred to go for the tie in that instance. Basically, that call made a long-shot even longer.

If we had a more capable offense then maybe, maybe, you go for that play.

but, could've looked like a genius had the planets aligned and both those gamble plays paid off.

Has coach Taffe gave any explanation on his choice to go for 2pts? That was simply one of worst decisions I've ever seen.

I'm wondering if the better play call on the 2 point try would have been for Maas to roll out to his right.....he had some wheels last night and he could have drawn the coverage in towards him by making it look like he called his own number and then found someone in the end zone at the last moment perhaps.

It's always a tough throw for a right-handed QB while rolling left. He either has to throw awkwardly or stop to plant his feet. Rolling right is much easier for him.

The two-point try didn't bother me at all as at least it was a good try to instill more confidence in the team......the play selection could have been better is all.

Hello Winnipeg 2X


Ron Your great guy but I Totally Disagree
You play the Percentages
You take the 1 Point and have the Onside Kick.
Hope you get back the Ball and give Nick a shot
You hope to get two or three good plays.
Bring in the kicker for the Tie
Take your Chances in OT
We might have Won or Atleast Tied..
shure we have could lost too.
You play the Percentages
You go for 1

also They Way Nick is kicking
I would have Punted the 2nd Ball out of The Endzone.
Our Defence would have Held..

These where Bone head plays by Charile
I Respect him alot
He is good coach
Even Good Coaches can make Mistakes..

This game was winable
With the Flags and Bad Calls
we where all Ready behind the 8 ball.
Charile made it worse..

I think Charlie was listening to Herm Edwards speach. "You play to win the game". He was trying to get a win in a tough road game. While I agree we should have taken the 1 point. I see what Charlie was thinking.
On the 3rd and 1 play. I'd go back to the 2nd down shovel pass to Lumsden. If he takes its straight up its a first down. He tried to break it outside and came up short. I would have taken the 3 points at that point in the game.

I agree that Taffe made a huge mistake but I'd say its a sign of desperation. This team does not believe in itself at this moment and it seems to me an effort to show faith in the teams ability to win and to illustrate that coming close is simply not good enough. Win or go home seems to be the message. I agree with the message but I am not certain I agree with the method of portraying it