I agree that throwing the ball at that point was a head-scratcher. But to be fair, there were 46 seconds on the clock. We could have taken two knees and killed most of it, but not all. Unless we had someone run around in the backfield for six or seven seconds. Been awhile since I’ve seen a team do that, but might have been worth doing.
The decision to throw was inexcusable…and almost cost them the game. Edmonton may have had a handful of seconds left had they run the ball and kicked…Austin needs to be sharper than that to say the least. Wins are hard enough to come by to give one away with a major brain cramp like that…Austin dodged a bullet but he sure needs to be more on the ball than that…
Positives — DTs had great pressure and great push…RBs were great, and Chevy showed some good inside running. OL was better…
This team has potential when players start to come back. One consolation in all the injuries they’ve sustained is that none of them appear to be season-ending…everybody should be available at some time. If you start plugging the names back into the lineup, it looks pretty good to me…
WOW,
This team played with some serious fire and emotion. They were jumping up an down together on defence at some point . The defence was hammering Reilly all night. Wow he must be sore . The defence stopped the run and tackled hard and played intense. Only problem was the letdown later in the 2knd half but they can adjust . The confidece on the D should be higher now and guys like isaac , Harris, Mccolough can only help . The DLINE was great and DAVIS helped the rush and run. Bulcke had a better game and boudreaux did as well . I think there is still too many penalties and some missed assignments but they are well on their way. On offence wow they have a running game. This is exciting and GABLE played well and the oline did well . with fantuz and maybe Gant coming back then things can only get better . I liked how they used Gable and Chevon. I think they are on the right track on both sides of the ball and the they are getting close to finding the roster they want. i thought both Davis boys played great on D. I did not like Webb getting that interference call as he was way too aggressive but Webb was behind alot of the enthusiasm that was good . This D played some old time tiger cats smash mouth defence. I thought grant , giguere and ellignson also looked good and the idea to lefevour in there was brilliant and he played very tough on those runs . I think we are on our way back and there is plenty of season left. i will give asutin credit for getting the running game going and whoever is responsible for the enthusiasm on defence i give full marks . I am cautiously optimistic because we have some energy and confidence on defence now and a pass rush and also a running game and an option t Burris on ocassion .Today is a good day a tiger town
Sure it’s excusable. They did win the game.
Burris finished with a completion percentage of 77%, and there was pass interference on that play that was not called.
That was inexcusable.
But…the call to throw was needless and careless. There was no reason to risk the victory the way they did. Pro football coaches should never make that call…yes, they dodged a bullet and won. Yes PI should have been called. But…the risk was needless. You can only win the game once, and the game was won had they just knelt down and then kicked. Edmonton wouldn’t have had time to move into FG range. I stand by my “inexcusable” statement…hopefully Austin learns from it…
IMHO,They should have ran the ball with 27 sec. left on the clock and 2nd down.
My football IQ is limited to say the least,
But I would think in that particular instance it calls for a run play and stay inbounds.
Questionable.
Just had a look.
It was 2nd and 10 with 45 seconds left.
20 seconds per play, Edmonton had no time outs left, a run play could have run 22 - 25 seconds off the clock.
I think they should have called a run play, and if at the end of that play there were 20 seconds or less left–gameover – on 3rd down you let the clock run down to zero and down it.
You are right Cap’n
If they ran that 2nd down and ate up 3 extra seconds running and staying in bounds,
Then on 3rd down there would have been 22 seconds left at which to punt
Even hang time would have killed the clock.
They would have needed a miracle runback or Hail Mary to win.
The option to pass instead of run, was wrong IMHO
There were 46 seconds left when the play was whistled in, not 27. So to be guaranteed of being able to kill the clock, they need to get a first down. But I think you’re right that running the ball would have been a less risky play. That would have killed 22, maybe even 24, 25 seconds. If they ran enough time off, they might then be able kill the rest of the clock with a slow knee. But if not, a punt would have taken the rest of the time off - 19 seconds to snap the ball, 3 or 4 hang time, and a couple more for the return. Even if there were a couple seconds left, Edmonton would have had one play from deep in their own end, instead of four.
Edmonton got the ball back with 17 seconds left, if the Tiger cats had ran a running play on second down there would not have been anytime left on the clock for another play after the kick maybe one play ,one of the worst coaching moves I saw in 42 years , definitely dodged a bullet. Who made that call.
Worst call?. but they won the game!!!
If they had lost your comment would be legit. If this was the worst call in your 42 years, I’m sure you will be talking about it for years to come…lol
Okay you guys are killing me! Holy Macinaw!
There were 27 seconds left when the ball was SNAPPED on 2nd down!
A run would have taken a minimum of 3 seconds if not more.
Bartel would have punted with 4 seconds remaining when the ball was SNAPPED on 3rd down.
4 seconds hang time, tackle, game over.
THEY SHOULD HAVE RUN THE BALL!!
I agree somewhat with this, however, football is about breaking tendencies. The traditional logic in that situation is “run the ball.” The argument can be made that everyone knows it and is prepared for a run so why not buck the tendency and throw? Yes, a run and a punt is somewhat safe, but a first down and three kneel-downs is even safer because there is no risk of a return or a bad snap on a punt or any other disaster scenario. I for one admire the guts to make the call and the message it sends to the players that the coach trusts them to make the play. Besides, if it had been completed or a penalty called on the play, this discussion would not be happening and the praise on Austin would be hi. Remember, hindsight is 20/20 and any other cliche you would like to add.
The problem with that is they threw a 5-yard pass on 2nd and 11.
It was a bonehead call, I don’t think there are any ways around it.
For once, luck was on our side and Shaw missed the field goal.
^^^ I would say luck was against the Tiger-Cats on that play because the refs did not call the pass interference.
Because it doesn’t matter very much if they stuff the run. Even if they do stuff the run, the effect of the run on the time remaining in the game is so significant that the outcome of the running play isn’t all that important. A first down is better, but even a loss of 5 leaves you in good shape if the other team ends up outside field goal range with only enough time for one play.
If the Cats had run the ball, and Edmonton had enough time for one play after fielding the ensuing punt, nobody would be screaming that the Cats should have run a higher risk play to get the first down with that little time remaining. Even if Edmonton had fluked out and scored a TD on the punt return, it wouldn’t have changed the fact that running the ball on second down would have been the smarter call. As in poker, sometimes you get the cards, sometimes you don’t, but the Cats did not play their hand properly at the end of the game.
And tendency breaking is important, but only when the risk/reward algebra backs it up. Nobody runs their short yardage offense on 2nd and 30 in the first quarter and justifies it by saying: “because nobody expects it!”. Furthermore, if the opposition knows anything about Austin, I’d argue that any running play is a tendency breaker. 
Yep. I get it about the run. But I don’t agree that a run is the “smarter” play as you suggest. The problem with any scenario where the ball is punted, is that there is another possession for Edmonton and the chance that the remaining time is enough to score maybe even on the return.(see the Milt Stegal highlight of the game against Edmonton where he scored on a long play with no time left.) The point I was trying to make is that a first down in that situation is the golden key. By run or by pass, doesn’t matter because no change of possession, no risk of a score. Everyone, me included, thought there was going to be a run on that play. Therefore, there is a better chance that the D will not be expecting and be less prepared for a pass. Broken tendency. I also believe in that situation based upon down and distance a first down via pass is more likely to succeed than a run. Again, everyone is anticipating a run. And your comparison of a 2nd and 30 fails because, very often in that situation a team calls a screen play because they know that the D is expecting a long pass and there will be a ton of room underneath. A short dump-off pass is unexpected in that situation. So I respectfully disagree with your risk/reward algebra. That type of conservative play-calling is for the NFL. Not a wide open game like the CFL.
P.S. I would agree with your comment on Austin’s use of the passing game, except in that game where the balance was almost 50/50 run and pass.