Dressing 2 RB to replace Walker

Notes: With Chevon Walker sidelined with a lower body injury, Ticats coach George Cortez said that veteran running back Avon Cobourne will get the start Thursday versus the Alouettes. Rookie running back Brandon Rutley may also be added to the active roster, likely to fill Walker's spot on kick returns
http://scratchingpost.thespec.com/

Explain to me again why we can't dress Cobourne and Walker at the same time on any other day? Who's is coming off the roster if Rutley gets put in? Finally how many kick returners do we need at once? [Williams, Giguere, Jones, Walker]

The whole season so far we have been hearing how the team won't dress Cobourne because he doesn't play sepcial teams. Now we see him dressing along with another RB to take one man's spot. Did George Cortez suddenly decide there was room for two after playing half a game without a running back?

You obviously read Drew's stuff, which means you should have read this tidbit:

This will undoubtedly start a new round of "why don't the Ticats dress both Walker and Avon" once Walker gets healthy. The reason, once again: because Avon doesn't play specials and wouldn't play enough.
I think that answers the question. I don't agree with it, but there it is.

As much as I like Walker and happy to see him breakout as potential star for this team with his play...

I think Cobourne should be in as the 'starting' RB and inserting Walker in a second back, and using him as hybrid player like we did with Thigpen. If we had a two back formation, or put Walker out as a receiver. This way we could have both players in the line-up and hopefully utilizing their talents. Cobourne is too good of a run blocker to not have him in, along with his grittiness to get tough short yards up the middle...

That part completely slipped my mind as I started second guessing the scenario after I read the entire article.

I don't think that answers the question though because Avon still doesn't play specials and Rutley most likely won't get one touch at RB. We saw what happens when a team's only starting RB gets injured last week. Then there's also the questions of how is the team suddenly making room for two RB to be dressed, and why do we absolutely NEED a fourth kick returner so badly that we can only dress one RB (not counting this week). I hate to keep bringing this up because this topic of Avon not dressing has been discussed to death but with the team's actions this week something's not adding up. I don't expect you to provide me with any more answers than what you just gave me, but it's just something to think about that makes no sense whatsoever.

It doesn't completely add up or make sense nor do I expect it to. I think Coach Cortez quoted himself into a corner, which is somewhat understandable considering he's been a coordinator his entire career. He's old school in experience but new to the nuances that in this day & age very comment & word is recorded & archived. The best thing he could do in my opinion is just to say, "my preference was to start only one import RB but i now see the benefits of dressing them both considering their different skill sets.

I for one, as others have mentioned, believe that Walker's injury is not as much as its made out to be. Breakaway touchdowns are always great here & there but I think Coach Cortez has realized that ball control & time of possession is more important in winning games especially when you have a struggling defense.

How 'bout touchdowns? Do they matter?

Touchdowns definitely matter. Ultimately it's who scores more that wins the game. Yet if you get one quick hitter for 6 that takes less than a minute off the play clock followed by or preceded by a bunch of 2 & outs thus giving your opponent more opportunities to score, you will ultimately lose the game. You have to have the ball to score. Thus controlling the ball and possessing the ball keeps your opponent from scoring. Win time of possession & win to turnover margin & you win the game. You do that and 99 times out of 100 you'll win the game.

Don't get me wrong. I like Walker. He's a sensational talent. But what's the quicker fix? Redo a defense and/or wait for it to come together or dress & play a guy that can keep your offense on the field longer thus keeping the ball out of you opponent's hands?

You score...then you kick....whether it took one play or 10, the other team gets the ball...same number of opportunities for each team at the end of the day.....and every play you run is a play where something can go wrong. You can march the length of the field and have your QB fumble on his way into the endzone...... :oops:

Very true as far as fumbling on the goal line. All I will say is this;

Oregon scored every 1:24. Why did they not win the BCS?
Indianapolis never won a Super Bowl until they're managed to keep the other team off the field long enough until the clock ran out?

By no means am I saying that; "Defensee Wins Championships" because we all know that's not true if we've ever bothered to look at the stats or read up on it.

But I will say that time of possession & turn-over margin dictates victory. Just look at the stats league wide this year.

Balance my dear friend. Balance. Find your Buddhist middle ground & embrace balance. (which means dressing two RB's!)

I missed this point.

It's not the same number of plays at the end of the day if you continually go 2 & out.

I didn't mean the same number of plays...I meant the same number of possessions.....

I agree that ball control and TOP matter, but mostly once a lead is established....4th quarter....killing the clock and keeping the ball...

Prior to that I think a TD is a TD....

But...the TCs haven't had many opportunities to try to kill the clock this year anyway. Other teams have...BC...Calgary...Winnipeg.....although there was the odd 60 yard rush sprinkled into their 4th quarter ball control...

You said that you don't think defense wins championships, and most of us on here hope you're right!

Not at all. Think of it this way. If a team were able to have 60:00 ToP, how many times do you think theyd be able to score? A touchdown is a touchdown but if a team scores four touchdowns but controls the clock so badly that they only chew up 10 min of the game clock total, imagine how many more points the team with 50 min ToP could score. Obviously my example is a little farfetched but you always wanna take as much time off the clock as possible unless you need to score quick.

Do we tell Williams not to score TDs on his punt and FG returns?

I don't think I said anything to that effect. I said ToP influences how many opportunities a team has to score.

Forgot the :wink: again. Sorry.

Of course not, but you can't look at things in a bubble. What did the defense do before the return? What was the result after the return when the defense had to go back on the field so quickly? When did those returns take place and how long had the defense been on the field at that point in the game? It would actually be interesting to go back and chart what happened immediately before and after a Williams TD return.

It's all good. I thought you were just being snarky :cowboy:

You forgot to knock wood, didn't you? Williams returns one for a TD, and Montreal immediately comes back with a drive for a TD of their own. Hmmmm....