This is disturbing. I thought Pless was right on his comments about offensive predictability. How many times can you throw that pass to the flat before defenses start to anticipate it and jump the route? I understand what Richie is saying about execution, but part of that execution is the offensive coordinator calling a good game. When Strasser was in charge of Montreal's offense in 2006, the results were decidedly less than stellar and Popp canned him at the end of the season. So far, his tenure in Edmonton looks like more of the same.
Furthermore, Hall name-checks Montreal as a team that doesn't test defenses deep, but omits the fact that the Als run a tight West Coast offense built on timing, pre-snap motion, and quick passes out of the pocket; their offensive line is also a veteran group with a good deal of continuity. Edmonton's O-line is a mess and the routes usually take too long for Ray to hang in the pocket and deliver a strike. And why take the deep routes away from a quarterback like Ray, who throws a great deep ball? I mean, you could make a highlight video based only on the corner-route TDs he threw to Jason Tucker.
Actually, Calvillo does dink and dunk a lot. But it's not all he does. He will use the intermediate routes when necessary, particularly on second and long. But quite frequently he will throw a four-yard pass to a receiver and let that receiver get more yards after catch (Richardson runs these kinds of routes a lot).
Calvillo is able to have success dinking and dunking is because:
[ol]- Pre-snap motion and picks/rubs let receivers create enough separation for Calvillo to make high-percentage passes.
Receivers running precise routes allows Calvillo to throw to places, based on timing, rather than to receivers per se.
The emphasis on the short pass forces DBs to play close to their receivers and opens up the possibility of pump-faking, then going deep on go routes or misdirection routes. Last week against Winnipeg, Calvillo found S.J. Green with a TD in precisely this fashion.[/ol]
When I look at Edmonton's offense, I see a team without an identity.
There's no misdirection in our offense at all which is why teams can comfortably predict our upcoming plays. Since the defense knows what's coming there's no need to stay disciplined on their part, making our weak O-line look even worse. It's a coach's function to find what works for his team not to blame them for not executing a game plan that has yet to work. I'm not letting the player's off the hook for missed assignments, but staying the course with what ain't working is foolish.
Interesting that there is no commentary on the defence, which is even more predictable for sake of exploiting against especially the run and screen and very short passes as corroborated by also the defencive stats ...
I have written extensively about the Eskie defence in that regard as I see the above as the weakest link in the chain at Edmonton.
Via the following is also plenty of video evidence to support what I think is even more woeful work in coaching the defence, especially against Hufnagel and Barker, where Hall et al are comparatively perhaps are still in defencive coordinator kindergarten: