Lack of Creativity from Cats' OC

Ummmm didnt Jesse get 11 and 8 yards on the 2 previous plays with the same sort of play calling ??

Amen to that. I got the impression the Cat's coaches were biting their fingernails say "please, just let us hang on, pleas just let us win this game". 90 seconds is a long time in the CFL. You have to try to put together a legitimate drive. Basically they threw the play book out the window and said, let's just hope Jesse can make the yards and hopefully we'll hang on. Jesse can get the yards, but three hand offs in a row on the last drive is a weak series.

I agree with Runs in row was bad.
Calling a Run from Shotgun on 2nd short was bad.

Other then that the Game Plan was well Done.

I'm not saying the game plan was bad, I'm just saying that we still need to mix it up a little better and we need to find creative ways to get our star running back the ball in open field. I watched the tape of the game and we threw to Jessie once. The result - a 15-yard romp. So why did we never go back to that. Does anyone know how many times Cates touched the ball compared to Jessie. I know Jessie ran with the ball once or twice more than Cates, but I'm sure Cates's all purpose yards were significantly more than the best running back in the league. When Tre Smith and Jesse are in the backfield we have the element of surprise, when jessie sits alone back there, a lot of that surprise element is lost.

Come on guys.

Lumsden had 19 carries for 137 yards, 2 TDs and a 7.2 yard average per carry.

What more do you want?

Like I've said before. It's fine to give Lumsden the ball and ask him to bull his way through the line. No one is better than him at doing that. But if we want to be successful (and actually win games) we need to get him the ball in open field. That's what Sask. were doing to us all night with Cates. If Jessie gets the ball with open field there is NO stopping him. Our OC has to do more with him than handing it to him behind the line of scrimmage.

I'd like to see a QB option. That would be scary to any defensive squad. Jessie and Printers coming around the end both having the ability to do some real damage. DIDn't see it last night.

The Riders stopped us on a huge 2nd and 2.

The Riders scored on the last play from the 1.

And that is how games are won and lost.

Football is a strategic game. You set your strategies and try to take advantage of your assets. We have a huge asset that, although we are using, we could be using much better and more efficiently. Games may be won in the trenches but they are often decided in the film room. Great teams are beaten by lesser teams with better game plans just as great armies are beaten by lesser ones in the war rooms. Our play selection is good but it's far from great.

8) I agree, but the only problem with the option play is that it leaves you QB exposed to take a real hard hit in the process !!!
I can still see Joe Zuger on the old option play, pitching the ball to either Dave Fleming or Willie Beathea at the very last second !!!   Nobody did it better than them !!!!

Bellefeuille drove Montreal fans crazy last year with that play on second and short. I can't tell you how many times I saw that handoff from the shotgun up the gut. Lumsden and the oline had no chance on that play.

Ticats are close...Printers needs to calm down with the missiles...put a softer touch on his passes and use his leg a bit more to widen the box a little. On defense they have to get some pressure on opposing QB's.

Great game, highly enjoyed it.

That second and 2 play was the option where if Printers thinks he can keep the ball and run for the first down he pulls the ball back from Lumsden and goes. If you watch the replay there was a defensive player coming right for Printers so he made the wise choice of giving it to Lumsden who was ironically brought down by the same player gunning for Printers. They just made a great defensive stop. Its like a goal line stop, where the defense naturally plays tougher. Still a great game.

Creativity Shmee ativity.

We had the lead...one minute to go.

Eat time off the clock. How?

Pound the ball down their throats.

That's what we did. 10 yards...8 yards.

Their Defence made a big play stopping us
from getting 2 yards for a first down.

We punted...our Special Teams stopped them
well back in their own end of the field.

Their Offence made a big play.

Two game-changing plays in the last minute.

They say games are determined
by on four or five big plays.

That's why they won.

No amount of armchair quarterbacking
or second guessing can change that.

ronfromtigertown is wise.

I agree 100%. Screen passes and little dump passes out into the flats to Lumsden creates that other dimension for him to rip off huge yardage, not to mention it spreads the D around. Those options were not used last game. Yes of course we played a good game and the play calling was very good. But, it could be better. Why stay pat? There's room for improvement and that is a key area to look at which was under utilized.

As far as the 2nd and 2 play where we got stuffed. Well considering Lumsden ran for 10 and 8 yards up the middle the previous 2 plays in a row, I would think that the best D in the league against the rush would not give up another big play in that particular obvious short yardage situation. Not to mention that scheme only had Lumsden in the backfield. If we got the first down or very close to it on that play I would say "wow we got a little lucky" running the same play 3 times in a row. If we had 2 backs in the backfield with Piercey leading the block or Tre drawing defenders outside, then I would say, "ok we got stopped." But you know much of the D were keyed on the run up the gut on that play, so if printers ran an end around with the option to pitch or throw, I would say "good call", whether it worked or not. I think the percentage of that play working was higher in that situation than handing the ball up the middle for the 3rd time in a row. Hopefully, the OC learned something on that one for future games.

Yep, was very effective. However the pounding Joe took probably contributed significantly to the shortening of his career.

8) Had you included the first paragraph of my post, you would see that I was not in favour of casey doing the option play for that exact reason.....subject to too many hard hits !!!!! :wink:
8) You're absolutely right Ron. That is how I saw it also !!!!!!

personally on 2nd and two id rather see casey under center, but i guess he gets a better read in shotgun and whether to option off or not.
rather see lumsden there on a dive between guard and center cause the sask lb's were coming across the line and keying on jesse.

On the other hand, emms1, when Jesse starts back there,

he doesn't have to rely on the blocking of one O-lineman,
he can 'read' where the best gap to run through is.

Also, he can hit the gap with greater impact because of
the speed he can get up by the time he hits the hole.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Both are effective.

Jesse had just racked off big yards
from the shotgun the preceding two plays.

Momentum appeared to be going in Jesse's favour.