Has the Coaching staff learned...

GIVE THE BALL THE COBOURNE!!!! :smiley: :smiley:

If they can mix it up like they did last night, and control the clock last night, they will be very tough to beat, or even compete with.

Trestman always says he wants Cobourne to get more involved, but normally that means he gets the ball on the first play of the game, then they go way from the run.

I sincerely hope so, man.

How much more evidence do we need in order to run Cobourne more? I said it last season and I'll say it again: our entire offense runs through Avon. If we get him going early, we are an extremely difficult team to contain. Whenever we get away from him in a game, our offense starts to sputter.

The CFL is not the same as the NFL. In the NFL you can keep running the ball, even if it isn't working at first. You can't do that in the CFL because you'll find yourself down 14 points if they keep stuffing the running game early on.

Usually, when they don't run too much, it's because the run didn't work the first few times they tried it. I can only remember one game where they didn't "test the waters" as far as the run was concerned. Also, the coaching staff calls plays based on what the defense is giving them. For example, Toronto will be watching game films of the Als all week long. You can bet they'll be pretty damned ready for the run. If the defense is jamming the line of scrimmage and has 7 guys tight to the box, you'd be stupid not to pass.

Conversely, I think Cobourne did so well last game because Marshall didn't expect us to run so much. He was more concerned with AC getting too much time in the pocket. In other words, the running game worked because Hamilton expected a passing one.

D&P, you've been hard on Trestman all year, but I honestly think he's not only doing a great job, but that he's the best coach in the CFL. I don't expect to have him too long as someone in the NoFunLeague is sure to notice him.

One other thing about Trestman: he's resuscitated the careers of both AC and Cahoon (and maybe even Chiu). All of them were thinking of retirement after that disastrous year with Popp as coach. (Not to take anything away from Popp - he's by far the best gm the Als have ever had).

100% agree. But, Montreal rarely finds themself behind in games. Look at the first game in B.C. They were behind when just passing the ball. 2nd half, they went to the run, and they were moving the ball a lot more, when they mixed it up. They rarely mix it up. Most of the time, they come out passing. Rarely do they try to run on the first 3 plays, when they do run, it is so predictable, and get stopped.

I think the main reason, is because the Offensive Line played so well. They opened the wholes, and Avon found it and exploded. While I agree, Hamilton was most probably practising against the Pass, I think last night's play calling was the best game all season. They really mixed it up.

Once again, I agree with this point. But, I think if you're playing Montreal, and you're more concerned about the Run, than what #13 will do, I think that's bad coaching. For sure Montreal's offensive strategy is to throw the ball. If Toronto does manage to stuff the run, and Montreal has to go to the pass, then Toronto will adjust itself to the pass. Montreal needs to mix it up. I'm not saying boycott the pass, I just want to see them throw the run in, instead of calling 15 consecutive pass plays, then run twice, then repeat.

No arguments from me. Every coach has made decisions that left us scratching our heads. They're human just like us/ A team doesn't go 10-2 only because of the players. The coaching is huge. Trestman gambling on 3rd down, shows his confidence in the Offense. He always gives credit where its due, and never points fingers. He'll adress some concerns, i.e the rush defense, after the game in B.C. and then the next weekend they did very well against the run.

It seemed to me that the Als didn't run the ball enough either and then I learned...Cobourn has the most touches in the league!

Just goes to show how many offensive plays Montreal has had. :wink:

Go back and watch film of our opening drives, and sometimes, opening quarters. Except for 1-2 games, we don't run the ball at all on our opening drives. We come out with 8-10 passing plays, and use only 1-2 running plays through the entire first quarter, during which we, not coincidentally, are unable to move the football. Giving up on the run after one short gain is not winning football strategy. Sometimes, we've gone away from the run despite gaining good yardage on the ground! You will find it very hard to convince me that other teams' defense are that prepared to stuff the run during the first quarter against a team that has shown in almost every game this season that it won't even bother to run the ball during that same quarter. If other teams are that ready against the run, why aren't we more effective through the air? Why aren't our receivers burning DBs on longer routes in man coverage?

Also, the coaching staff calls plays based on what the defense is giving them. For example, Toronto will be watching game films of the Als all week long. You can bet they'll be pretty damned ready for the run. [b]If the defense is jamming the line of scrimmage and has 7 guys tight to the box, you'd be stupid not to pass.[/b]
That's a big 'if.' Frankly, I don't see other teams lining up 7 guys in the box very often against us.

Let me clarify my stance here: my concern is how we get away from the run in crucial situations and through certain quarters (the first quarter being the most consistently egregious example). Cobourne usually gets a lot of fourth-quarter touches. You can't tell me that an enemy defense is prepared to stop the run only at certain points in the game but unable to stop it at other times. The pattern IMO has been established: we forget about the run for stretches of a game, and only become effective moving the ball again once we go back to a balanced attack that features pass and run. Check out the contrast between the first quarter and the second and third quarters in our Week 3 game against Saskatchewan and you'll see what I mean.

Conversely, I think Cobourne did so well last game because Marshall didn't expect us to run so much. He was more concerned with AC getting too much time in the pocket. In other words, the running game worked because Hamilton expected a passing one.
Cobourne is near the top of the league in rushing. If Marshall expected us to pass instead of run, he's an idiot. The reason why Cobourne did so well last game is simple: his O-line turned in a brilliant performance. Cobourne himself said as much in the postgame and just watching film you can see the gigantic holes at the LOS on virtually every running play. A truck could have ridden through them.
D&P, you've been hard on Trestman all year, but I honestly think he's not only doing a great job, but that he's the best coach in the CFL. I don't expect to have him too long as someone in the NoFunLeague is sure to notice him.

One other thing about Trestman: he's resuscitated the careers of both AC and Cahoon (and maybe even Chiu). All of them were thinking of retirement after that disastrous year with Popp as coach. (Not to take anything away from Popp - he's by far the best gm the Als have ever had).


These are good points, but I'm not sure where I ever implied otherwise. I too think Trestman is a great coach. However, even a great coach has his blind spots. To me, one of them is his stubbornness about using the run in certain situations in a given football game. It drives me crazy every time we come out with an all-passing attack in the first quarter, because it is rarely if ever successful. Look at every opening-series scoring drive we've had this year and you'll find a nice balance between short passes, intermediate passes, and the run.

Well there might be a method to the madness. . .

Maybe the plan is that we stay with practially a 100% aerial attack on our first 2 drives for the rest of the season and also the Eastern final.

Then, in the Grey Cup game, assuming we get there, we come out and in our first two series, we pound the running game, as it’s the last thing our opponent will expect. Use a 2 RB (Cobourne, Carter), 4 receiver set. . . or even go to 3 receivers and a full house backfield (Cobourne, Carter, and either Diedrick or Giffin). . . lots of possibilities. . .

One never does know. . .

The proof of my argument: we scored 15 points in the first quarter against Hamilton this week and we used Cobourne effectively on the ground. If Duval hadn't missed a makeable field goal, it would have been 17-0 instead. Now compare that production to quarters when we hardly run the ball. It's night and day.

Your points are well-taken. I"m going to specifically be looking at the run/pass ratio in the 1st quarter of our game against Toronto this coming Saturday, and for the causality between run success and run usage.