good points ron.
i just noticed they shoulda have just smashed it in at the 2nd and 2 and i think sask knew it was lumsden's ball, i think it was their backend lb that got a clear shot.
i think were it was a crucial to run there we should have had a goaline offence.
good points ron.
We'll see how it works out as the season drags on. Last season Bellefeuille didn't even have a goal line offense on the goal line ! and that option play from the shotgun well became a shutgun it plain didn't work with Edwards or Payton, two big backs.
You need two yards, the defense is a yard off. Why concede three yards? Just my opinion.
According to Casey on his radio show tonight, he had the option to pull the ball out and take it himself, but the 'riders showed a different look he hadn't seen before and he didn't make the right read.
I just watched the play again, and I think if he had pulled it out he could have easily outran #46 around the right side. Casey also mentioned Piercy being open, but you couldn't see it from the TV angle.
I like the assumption of responsibilty and absence of excuses.
There's also credit given to a new look D by Richie Hall.
Casey is a pro.
The shotgun draw is all marcel ran in sask a couple years ago, he totally predictable, trust me, you need a new OC
Worked marvelously against Toronto.
Yeah I know, But TOs run defense is notoriously poor. Not taking anything away from Lumsden, he is a beast, but Printers doesnt have a TD thru the air yet, and Belfool as we used to call him has no imagination, it was always shotgundraw, Keith left or right, and if that didnt work we were screwed
Maybe so, but we haven't seen such good offense in Hamilton for years now.
Hey I love the cats, but an offense cant rely on the tailback altogether, eventually Printers is gonna have to throw some TDs
i thought we utilized bauman and lumsden and then rotating with tre on certain downs.
when we spread bauman to the outside he also brought with him the lb/db.the shotgun is good for a lot of scenarios but..
my problem is on 2nd and 2 you gotta plow it for the 1st.
it was similiar to the 3rd and 1 we missed vs montreal, as lumsden was too far in the backfield.
New look ‘D’ of Richie Hall? So, when he was available, why didn’t we pick him up?
I meant on that particular play it was a new look for Casey. He said he hasn't seen it before. (As I've just highlighted in the above quote)
I should have been clearer.
every player on defence lined up
on [near?] the line of scrimmage.
Apparently, their Defensive End pinched in.
He could've pulled back the ball from Jesse's abdomen
and run the ball around our left end himself
or pass it to our tight end, Jeff Piercy,
who had nobody in front of him.
There were other ways to get those two yards. Like Hfx said, why concede three yards when you're trying to get two and the D has to line up a yard off the line?
One quick slant pass to Miles, Woodcock, or Mitchell would have worked. Or a running play that wasn't so obvious and didn't take so long to develop. I admire Printers for taking responsibility for the read, but it was a poor play call from the bench IMO.
That situation called for Dickerson up the gut, because he is the tiCats best fullback. IMHO
With the players the TiCats have , Lumsden, Smith And Dickerson. They should run the Wishbone O.(Maybe as a no huddle set?
On that 3rd and 2. if the cats had called a quick slant and missed it. People would be screaming why didn`t they hand the ball to Lumsden.
He was a couple yards in the backfield. But the way he was running, I could see why they thought he could gain the 2 yards.