Herb's piece on the gamble http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2013/0 ... t-calgary/
What a moron. No addressing the issue of how deep the handoff was on that third-down gamble, nothing at all. And where is Miller? Why isn’t he talking to reporters? Or isn’t he being allowed to? :roll:
Unless Popp steps in and makes some big changes to the coaching staff (i.e. at firing least Miller and possibly Hawkins and Verducci too), we will be lucky to go 5-13 this year.
Everyone is piling on the "Calvillo is over the hill" bandwagon because it's easy. The vultures are circling. But I'll just say this: from 2006 through 2011, how did Ricky Ray look? Ray is a great QB still in his physical prime and even he had a run of almost five years of mediocre play, with the Esks missing the playoffs multiple times and the offense unable to do anything but dink and dunk. Why was that? Was it because Ray suddenly became an awful QB? Or was it because the offensive coordinators were subpar and unable to put him in a position to succeed? Look at what happened to him from one season to the next when he went from a sad-sack offense to a dynamic system run by a Trestman disciple (Milanovich). He turned his career around and led his team to the Grey Cup. So don't tell me Calvillo all of a sudden became over the hill, because I just don't buy it. We were one dropped TD catch away from going to the Cup final last year and now we're suddenly a bad team? Hmmm, what changed? Right, the coaches...
Also, no QB likes to get hit. The ones who do, like Buck Pierce, never stay healthy enough for the team to reap the benefit of this supposed "toughness" (read, idiocy). If you hit the crap out of a QB, you throw him off his game no matter who he is. The problem isn't that Calvillo doesn't like getting hit. The problem is that our playbook is so weak that we're unable to make teams pay for sending the house and roughing Calvillo up. Have you noticed that Anthony doesn't call protection audibles anymore? Why do you think that is? Is it because he's relishing the thought of getting drilled by the enemy LB or DL post-snap? Or is it because Miller's kindergarten playbook is not only predictable but inflexible, so that Calvillo actually can't change the protections at the line based on what he sees?
Sure glad this thred is so appropriately named
"He" really doesn't get it.
Time and puppy-love really are mortal enemies
Oh...and that whine about "one catch away"
If Calvillo hadn't "blown" for most of the game
We wouldn't have needed Bratton to make that catch
Painting yourself into a corner and then blaming the room
well...what else is there to say?
At least we can be sure AC won't lose another Grey Cup
This team won't get another sniff until he leaves and we rebuild
Don't hijack my threads.
There is not another coach in the league that would have gambled and called that play in a close game on their 30 yard line. It was bad decision making. Porter should be running the short yardage package and Marsh should be on the practice roster.
I'll do what I please
What short-yardage package? The direct snap to Whitaker? Have we seen a single QB sneak in the six games (including preseason) this year? I don't think it exists. I mean, if your idea of a short-yardage package is handing off the ball to an RB six yards deep in the backfield, it doesn't matter whether it's Porter or Calvillo doing it.
So two bad decisions: the playcall and the gamble at our own 30.
Exactly. We have no short yardage package. Probably because they haven't had time to put one in and that's on them and its because they don't have any experience in 3 down football. Its roughly 30 to 40 conversion plays a season or the equivalent of one game of snaps over the course of the season.
Or don't run practice efficiently enough to install one. Seriously, that wasted 40 minutes last practice could have been spent installing a basic package of short-yardage plays.
Not enough time?
We don't have a quarterback we can trust to take snaps under center
Out of curiosity. did Hawkins have any other comments on the outcome of the game?
Have no idea. I don't even want to hear what that snake-oil salesman has to say anymore. Just arrogant doublespeak from a guy who is absolutely clueless.
Do you see Milanovich use Ray on short yardage ?
J'espère que Hawkins n'est pas sincère lorsqu'il dit qu'il reprendrait ce jeu dans les mêmes circonstances. Ce serait un horrible aveu d'incompétence.
Cette décision était une imbécillité de débutant. Et des imbécillités de débutant, les entraîneurs des Alouettes en commandent beaucoup à l'attaque.
Messam a joué comme Messam. Bon sur un jeu, invisible sur d'autres, défaillant quand ça compte. Il a toujours été comme ça. Mais ce n'est pas Messam qui a bousillé le jeu. Il était nul à chier de faire reculer le ballon lorsque l'idée est de le faire avancer d'une verge. À la limite, si tu veux pas faire la faufilade du quart avec Neiswander ou Marsh, tu fais la faufilade du demi avec Messam, un gars qui peut pousser sur un joueur de ligne, mais tu recules pas le ballon de 6 verges.
Les explications de Hawkins me dérangent parce qu'il a l'air d'un gars qui vit dans le déni. Comme si admettre que c'était pas une bonne idée l'aurait plus discrédité que de donner une explication qui ne tient pas la route. Ce genre d'attitude ne le fera pas progresser et ne fera pas progresser l'équipe. Je me souviens lors d'une partie contre Calgary, en fin de partie, les Alouettes perdant par 2 étaient à 2ième et 2 environ au milieu du terrain. Trestman a commandé une courte passe dans le flanc gauche à Richardson, un jeu qui n'avait pas fonctionné de toute la partie. Ça rate. Le jeu suivant, il est revenu avec le même jeu, et ça a raté. Trestman avait avoué que finalement, ce n'était pas une bonne idée. Bon, là, tu te dis qu'au moins, le gars a les yeux en face des trous. La réponse de Hawkins fait penser le contraire.
He didn't defend the choice of play, he defended his decision to go on 3rd down.
Was just curious how he was going to spin it.