Interesting reading the comments of Als Olinesmen of the Ticats 10 allowed sacks last week. They all said the same thing...Stupid Bellefeuille offense made them look bad, real bad. They allowed 68 sacks last year, 15 this year on track for 18.5 for the season ad drop of 50 sacks! Bellefeuille's offense will lead the league in sacks allowed for the second consecutive year and with a different team. Quite an accomplishment. Flame away
Interesting. I can't help but feel that our O-line is not that bad. I must admit however, that I don't understand how an offensive scheme can result in such a significant increase in sacks. Could someone who truly understands that part of the game, please explain how our offensive schemes result in so many sacks compared to other offensive schemes.
Do you have a link or something?
No for obvious reasons
Regardless of the proof that is an interesting parallel.
I'm not sure that it is all about the offense that Marcel is running, ie. when Cameron Wake flies past our tackle and sacks the QB shortly after the snap, there is not much you can do. The same can be said when a 4 man rush makes short work of 7 blockers. This is more about skills and abilities.
I would agree that this team seldom has a response for the blitz, and some of this certainly comes down to schemes and coaching. They don't run screen plays, seldom dump passes to their backs when the blitz comes, and seldom have receivers change their patterns when a blitz is obviously coming.
When these plays are not executed, the defense knows it, and understands there are no repercusions when they blitz. Blitzing is supposed to be risky because you are covering pass receivers with fewer players. Most teams know that the Ti-Cats don't handle the blitz, and just keep on bringing it, because they never get burned.
We have been blown in 3 games this year. Two against BC, and one against Montreal. Both of these teams have serious pass rushes. The two games we one were against the Argos who usually play a 3 x 4 defense that doesn't blitz as much. This is a big issue that needs to be resolved, and not just on offense, as we are last in the league in sacks for.
I don't know if you can really blame his system on the number of sacks but then I've never played o-line and only have high school football on my resume. But how complex can it be really, if you're going to pass the o-line have to block the oncoming defenders unless he is trying to throw tricks in there like when it's a pass, one o-line guy falls down to make it look like a run but really it's a pass, type of trickery? Sort of just kidding here but honestly, I don't get it that much that it could be the system at fault. Maybe someone can chip in here with more knowledge of o-line play.
I will say it for the 100th time. There are three main problems that go beyond the personnel on the O-line: lack of a quick-passing game, lack of a QB escape valve, and lack of quality receivers.
Lack of quick-passing game. What's the best way to beat an aggressive pass rush? Get the ball out of the QB's hands before the rush gets him. It's part of why the Alouettes have allowed the fewest sacks in the league. Calvillo makes his pre-snap read, gets the ball, and fires it away almost as soon as it's in his hands. Now, I'm not saying that every offense has to be like Montreal's. But if you don't have any quick-passing game in your playbook, you are not just predictable, you are a sitting duck for defensive fronts like BC's. It all comes down to time: if all your plays require four seconds before the QB throws the ball and the defense is only giving you two seconds, it's not hard to figure out that some of your plays need to change. Essentially, the O-line is being asked to block for far too long far too frequently. Defenses see this and they lick their chops, because they know the QB is going to be forced to hold onto the ball long enough for them to reach him.
Lack of QB escape valve. After making his pre-snap read, a good QB can check off at the line of scrimmage if he sees something he doesn't like or for which the called play can't handle: for example, a blitz of some kind. In this scenario, he'll audible one of his receivers into a 'hot route', which is essentially a very quick route in which the primary goal of the receiver is to get open immediately so the QB can throw him the ball as soon as the ball is snapped. If the receiver is facing zone coverage, the hot route is usually a short route in which he finds the soft spot in the zone to receive the pass; if it's second down, hopefully this route is just long enough to pick up a first down and move the chains. If, however, the receiver has an isolation route (man coverage), the hot route can actually be a deep route designed to burn a blitzing defense by attacking man coverage through the air for a potentially big gain in yardage. A third variant is, of course, the screen pass, which is designed to use the very aggression of the D-line against it by getting the ball-carrier in space behind the onrushing linemen and allowing the O-line to lead block down the field. The problem in Hamilton is that Bellefeuille doesn't seem to have any hot routes for his QB that don't involve the QB simply scrambling for his life. Regardless of whether it's Printers, Williams, or Porter, there doesn't seem to be an escape valve for the QB when opposing defenses bring pressure that the blocking scheme on the called play can't handle.
Lack of quality receivers. A good, experienced possession receiver does his own checking off at the line of scrimmage, and can read blitz as well as the QB. He doesn't need to be audibled into a hot route; he knows on his own that he can't run the intermediate or deep route that the play called for, because his QB simply won't have time to complete the pass. An experienced possession receiver will run the hot route so his QB can find him quickly and hopefully move the chains. Unfortunately, the Cats don't have this kind of receiver. Rodriguez is too new to the league. Walker, for some inexplicable reason, isn't playing. Baumann is still learning the game. Mitchell isn't consistent enough. Woodcock has never shown himself to be more than an occasional deep threat. And Miles has disappointed in this area.
Well lets look at the stats, both teams have pretty much the same personel
Montreal 68 sacks allowed
Hamilton 49 sacks allowed
2008 (Projected (sacks / 13) x 18
Montreal 18.5 sacks allowed -367%
Hamilton 76 sacks allowed +64%
You said "reading", so the statements must have been published in a paper, and within the past week.
So why can't you produce the link or source?
If you had said "heard", then one would have to assume it is legal hearsay and not permissible in a court of law because of the unreliability of "hearsay". I don't dispute the numbers, or the conclusions one can draw from them. <!-- s8) -->8)<!-- s8) -->
I posted this in another thread following the first BC game, and I am now breaking a promise not to post it again, but I think it is particularly relevant to this thread, and it became more relevant after Marcel Bellefeuille was named Interim Head Coach . . . I really think this organization is disfunctional . . . read on !!
I am regurgitating this old message that I posted on August 2nd after a loss to the Montreal Alouettes, because I, for one, am not convinced that the players on the O-Line are at fault. Yes, Marwan had 2 bad snaps today, but he was an absolute beast in the Argo game, and if you understand offensive line play you will know that this 2007 All-Star has been having another good year. I am not sure that the rest of the O-Line that is contributing to the most potent rushing attack in the CFL are that bad either . . .
It may be difficult to remember now, but last year it was Anthony Calvillo who was running for his life on every play, and it was the Als O-Line that were being criticized. What is the common denominator between last year's Als and this years 'Cats . . . ?? see below . . .
While watching tonight's game, I recalled that I read a Paul Lambert interview before our season opener against the Alouettes. Paul said that the Als Offensive Line felt that they had a lot to prove this season after their dismal performance in 2007. They felt responsible for the fact that Calvillo got sacked a lot last year, and was physically beaten up before the end of the season. But Lambert also said that the O-line did not feel that their physical talents were eroding, but a lot of the schemes that Marcel Bellefeuille was using put extra pressure on the O-line and resulted in the dramatic increase in QB sacks last year. He concluded by stating that he hoped their new offensive playbook would correct a lot of those problems.
Does this sound familiar?? Our O-line was supposed to be one of our strengths this season - they are struggling. Now I don't think that we can attribute 100% of the problem to the Offensive Co-Ordinator, because on several plays our O-Line (including All-Star Marwan Hage) demonstrated that they could not make the adjustments to deal with simple defensive line stunts. That has nothing to do with the OC.
But on several occasions Glen Suitor pointed out situations where the Tiger-Cat receivers failed to make the proper adjustments in response to Alouette blitzes that should have been easy to recognize. This meant that our QB (Williams this week, Printers last week) didn't have a selection of hot receivers to throw to; this, in turn, meant that our QB was running for his life much of the night. This is clearly bad coaching. Moral of this long story?? For the second year in a row we have a scape goat named Marcel !!!
I inferred that "...for obvious reasons" meant he was just making it up.
Maybe he's not.
As you mention, "reading" implies some published source, though it could mean read in a private letter or email, or read scribbled on the back of a coaster.
I'm already inclined to believe the speculation that's been floated in the media since last year that Bellefeuille's offensive schemes caused the Montreal O-line look bad last year, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were Montreal players who said -- or wrote -- so in some context or other.