Dear Coach Cortez

I think the choice of a 1 point or a 2 point conversion attempt was about a 50-50 proposition. It depended not only on what we did and whether we were successful, but also on what the opposition did with the ball afterwards. We make the 2, Sask needs a FG to tie. We miss the 2, Sask can win with a FG, tie with a single. If we go for 1 and make it, Sask can get a single and we still win (as it happened) or they can make a FG and win. Choices, choices. The coach made one and the point we got won us the game. I have no criticism of the coach to make.

Re. the answer to Drew Edwards... does that mean we only have one play for 2 point conversions? Now there's something I could criticize if I was in that kind of mood.

As for chewing his pencil, he was probably as nervous late in the game as the fans were watching it at home on TV.

Oh geez, mr62, I was NOT being serious, the Cats just won a terrific game with a comeback for the ages !! That was the only little thing I could think of to quibble with, so i was in a lighthearted sense tyring to poke fun at the various posters who always find a dark lining in a silver cloud. I'm really sorry I started this thread at all, since my misplaced facetiousness has been so misunderstood (and for that I am blaming no one but myself).

So, apologies to all. . .and it WAS one heck of a great victory. . . all you have to do is go over to the Rider boards and see how they are taking it. . . worth a laugh or two for sure !

Excellent point, chewbaca1973.

The right decision was made. It was based on percentages. Any time a team attempts to run or pass

the ball over the goal line from the 5[?] yard line, whether for a 2 point convert or a touchdown

that play is are far from guaranteed to succeed. Kickers seldom miss single point converts.

If Coach Cortez had instructed the Offence to go for a 2 point conversion attempt

and it wasn't successful the Cats would have had to go into overtime to get the win.

That single point conversion was very provided the margin of victory... end of story.

the only problem i had was when we had the ball at the end of the game and he called 2 running plays and we had to give the ball back to the roughriders with 55 seconds left this is not the nfl it is hard to run out the cfl clock .they needed to get a first down but 2 running plays are not our strong point to get a first down should have been a little more creative and we might have finished the game with our offence

That was a bit puzzling to me as well, 92mustang. The passing game had been working like a charm in that quarter, they weren't running the ball at all, the Riders had no answer in particular for the crossing route to Chris Williams, so why go away from it? A bit odd, although the risk is less with a running play so I guess there was some method to the madness. . .

MadJack: My apologies too...I should have seen through it. Too early and no coffee. :smiley:

You’re excused !! :lol:

I expect the answer to your question is Yes. They likely practice a special play for a 2-point situation every week until they try it in a game. Then, because it's on film, they'll come up a new one. This time, they chose to use their 2-point play to get the TD, and the lead, on 3rd and goal from the 6. Then, without it available as a surprise play, they chose to take the sure thing single point conversion. I'd say it's very likely they'll be practicing two new 2-point plays when they get back to work after the bye.

Interesting in the game thread someone posted that the coach made a mistake and overlooked the two point conversion,, or something along those lines. Then about five posts down after williams gave a knee on the missed fg the same person said it was a good play by williams because one point doesnt matter! Funny, the one point doesnt matter because of the same thing the person said the coach overlooked.
The convert I keep hearing they shouldnt have kicked won them the game. Great coaching job.
Cortez is the best coach I have seen here for a long time. He takes no crap from anyone, he calls his players out immediately on the sidelines without worrying about their feelings..
Too many people watching nfl and going by "the book". That book means nothing in the cfl with one pointers. Its the same thing I hear in baseball when they dont sacrifice bunt a player to second and everyone complains that its the sure thing to get him over. You gotta make the bunt, you gotta make the two point conversion and arguing for it and assuming its gonna be made isnt exactly fair to the coach. Its not so easy to do. How about if he doesnt make it?
If they went for two and missed it I think they would have probably lost the game as williams takes that out of the endzone and we start in a deep hole. Field position was important and sask starting at midfield needing only a single to tie or fg to win would not have been good. Williams cant take them all the way every time and he cant get to the 40 every time. We Probably woulda been on the five or ten. It woulda played out in sask favor.
Great game.

Williams was probably under orders to take as much time off the clock as he could before giving up the single. This order would have been the same had they gone for the two point convert and made it. But he would have been under orders to get out of the endzone to save the lead if they had gone for two and missed it. And it looked like he could have made it out easily.

Either way, we would have still had the lead and (probably) would have won the game.

The single convert won the game. Good job coach.

If Cortez maintains this winning formula, he can coach stark naked on the sidelines while picking lint out of his navel for all I care.

George has steadily assembled a cohesive unit in which players embrace the team concept.
Not an easy task, yet Cortez appears to possess an innate ability to arouse a concerted effort and perseverance among the troops while retaining player respect.

now to work on unnecessary penalties.. :slight_smile:

(is there such a thing as a necessary penalty?)

Any penalty that prevents a sure touchdown. E.g. The horse collar tackle on the 1 yard line last week, PI when totally beat in the endzone.

Yes, I wonder how that player agent whose name escapes me feels now (the one who was saying there was team dissension).

true CFO, if the end result negates a most certain TD or FG.

Red zone penalties excluded of course.

No dissension here..

[url=] ... clip730171[/url]

and the agent's name is Darren Gill who is currently dining at the all you can eat Cortez Crow Restaurant.

Up until this game I truly wondered if George Cortez had "the right stuff". I questioned some of his decisions in previous (lost) games. As long as those decisions win us ball games I have now learned not to question someone who obviously has forgotten more about football than most of us will ever learn. I hope he reads this post, because I truly and sincerely want to thank him for taking the Cat head coaching job.


I'm another one who yelled at the screen to will Cortez to go for 2. Shortly afterward I second guessed my thought it is a 50/50 thing you can argue both sides, I'm still not sure what the right call was. That's why I watch the games from Box F and not the sidelines in the end you can't argue with a win. Certainly his call on 3rd and goal on the winning TD took major guts.

I'm pretty sure Jack was just having a little fun with his comment. Lets not take things too seriously!

As the Little General was fond of repeating: "When you throw the ball, there's three things that can happen, and two of them are bad."