I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting fatigued watching CFL defenses. The way I see it, DC's in this league just formulate a blitz package according to other teams pass pro rules and then try to out number the blockers by sending 1 more man...that's it, I don't see any true fundamentals implemented. No coverage schemes just cover 1 or zero. On that last Winnipeg driver Thorpe just kept on sending pressure time and time again and the DB's were unable to make a big play (dropped ball by #31 a couple of plays before the winning TD). The way BC ran all over Sask. last night it confirms everything I believe. No run reads, no emphasis on the run game, all defensive coordinators work on in practice are pass Rush, line stunts / blitz packages and man to man coverage. This is Touch Football in pads and it might as well be touch football with all the missed tackles I see each game.
Your not wrong. Probably has to do with two short practices a week and constant roster movement.
First of all, we play a fair bit of zone or man/zone combo behind the blitzes. Second, everything is cyclical. A few years ago everyone was into the rush-four front with tons of checking off at the line. Except that now, offences will eat that up with timing routes all day long in the post-Trestman-Hufnagel era. So we're back to Don Matthews-style pressure. Until teams show they can handle it -- and despite winning the game, Winnipeg really couldn't handle it, and neither could BC -- that's what DCs will dial up.
A separate issue is Thorpe's playcalling when we're protecting a lead in the last minute. I want to see a bit of variation, with some zone drops and rush-three fronts out of a blitz look. He did it once early in the game but Winnipeg converted for a first down so I guess he didn't want to try it again. But ultimately, you need to vary the pressure when the game is on the line.
Furthermore, Pete Caroll, architect of the Superbowl-winning Seahawks, is on record as saying that a defence with a million checks and keys is crazy, even at the pro level. For Caroll, you create a defence keyed to your personnel strength, ideally a one-gap D where there aren't a million reads at the line, and then you let your playmakers make plays. Hard to argue with Seattle's results. There's no need to belittle the CFL and call it touch football just because you don't like what DCs are currently serving...
you obviously never played or coached at a high level. keep quoting Pete Carroll
And you have? :lol:
Wow, thanks, captain Jacka$$. You go on the Foe list, now.
C'est possible, mais je ne vois pas en quoi cette réponse apporte quoi que soit d'intéressant à la question.
Vous auriez pu articuler les raisons pour lesquelles vous n'étiez pas en accord avec ce que D & P mentionnait, et ça aurait été sans doute très apprécié.
En préférant le discréditer avec cet étrange commentaire, vous semblez avoir clos ce qui était parti pour être une rubrique très intéressante. J'aurais aimé avoir votre vision suite aux propos de D & P car ils se situaient dans le détail du jeu.
Pour ma part, je trouve que les Alouettes ont écopé de deux punitions non méritées, dont une qui a coûté 3 points, autant dire la partie.
À mon sens, c'est Smith qui a livré la partie aux Bou! Bombers avec cette interception au milieu du 4ième quart. C'est le jeu qui a fait changer le vent de côté.
You're right, but Dunigan (I think) mentioned that part of the issue was that London didn't fight through his jam at the line enough to create separation for Green on the route, which allowed the Winnipeg DB to break on the ball. One instance of a receiver not giving his all on the play with catastrophic results for us.
oldpro = new foe.
We're all fans here. Why can't we just get along?
yes I have, played and coached, didn't mean any disrespect, I just struggle with some people who use terminology that they are not even familiar with. Getting to the Als, They play Match - I haven't seen much combo coverage schemes, I know Thorpe quite well, and he is a very smart man, but you cant keep coming especially when you are trying to protect a lead. Winnipeg needed a TD to win, they could have dropped into coverage and let the QB beat them, which I don't believe the Winnipeg QB is good enough to do.
Most especially, you can't keep coming with the same max blitz (or for that matter any specific blitz design) every time and not expect them to sometimes give the QB enough time.
Anyway its kind of unfair to beat on the defense when Smith couldn't close and gave away 12 points with his two interceptions. Smith had 3 blown chances there. The defense did enough to win the game.
Exactly. You won't win many games when you gift 2 touchdowns to the opposition and take almost 200 yards in penalties.
From your previous post on Ameet Pall I`m going to hazard a guess then that you perhaps coached him - at Vanier maybe.
m genuinely curious why you think he hasnt cracked the lineup as yet. Nagging injuries perhaps?
LOL. I know football terminology just fine, thank you very much. If you can get off your gigantic condescension horse to have a courteous conversation...
Getting to the Als, They play Match - I haven't seen much combo coverage schemes,I know what match is, and I'm not saying they do lots of combo coverage. But I have seen it, and don't really care whether you've seen it or not. I respect that you've played and coached, but we are all fans here and our opinions are all worth the same thing.
I know Thorpe quite well, and he is a very smart man, but you cant keep coming especially when you are trying to protect a lead. Winnipeg needed a TD to win, they could have dropped into coverage and let the QB beat them, which I don't believe the Winnipeg QB is good enough to do.Not disagreeing with you there. I've been saying the same thing. You can't just bring pressure every snap when you're trying to protect a lead and all you have to do is keep the enemy team out of the end zone (allowing a field goal would have been fine). Once Winnipeg got to midfield, there was no reason to keep sending the house. I wanted to see us flood the intermediate and deep zones with DBs. We could have forced Willy to throw into double or triple coverage or else run for the first down and waste valuable time on the clock. But no, it was the same old pressure package that eventually burned us when Lavarias didn't get deep enough on his drop.
This points to a failure by the HC. I didn't understand why we kept trying to throw the ball instead of just burning as much of the clock by running the ball and short outs inbound to control the clock as much as we could in that last drive before the Fedino TD in the fourth quarter. Then the defense kept blitzing and Willy did exactly what every QB would have done is look for the short pass over the middle. This is the same reasons why Hamilton was allowed to come back from behind in the semi last year.
The strategy on both sides of the ball were overly aggressive IMO, where was Higgins wisdom with his young coordinators ???
And again these are the same issues that dogged Higgins in Calgary and cause him to lose four straight playoff games.
I agree. A good head coach needs to be able to step in and override his coordinators at key points if he feels it's necessary. I have no idea why he allowed Thorpe to call such an aggressive, repetitive game in the final minute. All three men (RD, Higgins, Thorpe) are at field level on the sidelines. Communication should have been instantaneous. Instead, we lost a game we should have won. And with our guaranteed loss at BC Place coming up tonight, we'll be 1-3 instead of 2-2. Big difference...
Exactly. Not like he had to rely on his headset to communicate to Thorpe or Dinwiddie.