Moton Hopkins

I did not know much about this guy, I was quite surprised to see how young he is 24. Eric Wilson mentions he wants to see him stay in the lineup, tha'ts a good endorsement by an experienced vet. We need to see how he does against better Olines but I'm pretty excited and hopeful that we may have found a player... :slight_smile:

I saw that comment from Wilson as well. Nice endorsement from a veteran. I'm going to be watching Trestman and Tibesar on this. If they kick Hopkins back to the practice roster just to make room for an underachieving player (McElveen or even Bekasiak), I'll know that they're not truly interested in upgrading the defensive line.

When did you guys steal him from us?

Hopkins et al had a great game for us and helped the D play oustanding D. I don't' know much about this player, and one game does not a career make. However, based on what I saw in that game (2 sacks I believe), I would say that he has the size, the drive that we are looking for. Now, can he do that game in game out?

JKM, agreed that one game doesn't make a career. But in the Edmonton game, I saw our D-line finally winning some one-on-one battles across the board. Bowman was getting loose consistently because Hopkins was providing great pressure up the middle, putting the Edmonton O-line in a bind as to who to double-team. I don't expect Hopkins to be a sack machine every game but in terms of his body type, drive, and physicality (as you noted), he deserves to be a starter. When was the last time the defense pushed the pocket like we did against the Esks?

Well, d&p, that's exactly what you're looking for in a down D lineman. Of course, every team studies video of games to get a better feel for what types of alignments the D is going to throw at you in an attempt to adjust their O schemes accordingly -always a chess game, isn't it? That's what I love about football.

However, the D linemen are required to get a push on the O linemen while ensuring contain at least on the LOS. The LBs have to watch for sweeps, options... while coming to the rescue for something up the middle; a tall order to be sure. Further, a blitz package is a high reward/high risk type of venture. However, forcing the QB to kiss the carpet often enough will force the OC to make adjustments early in the game. When executed properly, that can tip the balance in your favour. Tibesar & co. really did their homework on this one and our W was attributable to both the O and the D, which is precisely the point of a well-balanced team. I agree that Hopkins was a big part of that and that he can/should have more starts. Gotta keep the opposing QB running for his life!

La bonne performance de Hopkins est certes à retenir car elle constitue la première bonne surprise de cette partie. Mais on peut dire que dans l'ensemble, toute la défensive a joué une grosse partie. Elle a fermé la porte quand c'était nécessaire et a constamment pressé Ray, que ce soit avec ou sans blitz.

Une chose est sûre : Hopkins s'est fait des amis lors de cette partie et Tibesar et Trestman auraient tort de ne pas songer à lui donner un autre départ. Il ne l'aurait pas volé.

I see your point, but it might be a chicken-and-egg thing. One could argue that part of the reason the defense had such a strong game was because we were getting a great push from the interior of the line. When the defense is dominating at the line of scrimmage, suddenly, everybody on defense looks better. :wink:

Man I wish there was a yin/yang smiley on this board
Every time this topic comes up I can't help thinking that.

This was exactly my point when people were getting down on the secondary
And I kept insisting that we had a great secondary and the problem was the pass-rush
In football...perhaps as much as any other sport...a weakness anywhere on the field
Will create a perception of weakness in any or all squads
And the same can be said of strengths

Obviously this effect can occur as much within a particular unit
as when a poor returner or poor blocking/coaching can make for a bad return game
As as it crosses the offence/defence/special teams barriers
like when an under-achieving ST consistently results in bad field-position...and affects the overall perfomance of the offence...which is therefore responsible for the defence being on the field longer...which can ultimately be responsible for a loss

It's one of the most fascinating aspects of the sport...where weaknesses and strengths compete with perceptions of same...and it's often the coaches with a "zen-like awareness" who perceive, react and adapt to field the best team possible. Even the best coaches have their personal biases, however...and so many here have pointed out Trestman's predilection for import receivers...perhaps at the expense of success on the d-line.

The great equaliser is sometimes injuries
When a team is stuck in a rut...convinced it has the right personnel
sometimes inexplicably despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary
Every once in a while someone goes down...and someone else gets to step up

The Alouettes had...until last game...frequently stunk it up on defence
There could have been any number of problems
But honestly...without the power and dominance of Anthony Calvillo's offence
We'd be looking at an entirely different season

In steps Moton Hopkins
The Alouettes get sacks on 2 successive plays
Early in the 1st quarter
And as d&p points out
The rest was history

Suddenly Chip Cox is flying around
Pressure is coming from everywhere
Everyone's swarming to the football
And well...we won

So it's impossible to know if Hopkins is that key ingredient
That was missing from this year's mix
Or if the secondary, linebackers, run-defence, pass-defence etc are the most significant issue
But a comparison of last week's defence to the rest of the year
Is night and day

And while Trestman and the coaching staff may have their "blind-spots"
When it comes to priorities and the allocation of talent
There's no question that the Moton Hopkins experiment
Deserves to run at least another week

C'est très vrai! Je ne minimise pas l'impact que Hopkins a eu dans cette partie, au contraire. Disons alors qu'il a inspiré ses coéquipiers qui se sont hissés à son niveau...

For sure, and I agree with you on the secondary to some extent. I still think there are some plays that are 100% on the DBs -- like when Anderson blew his coverage on Dressler, leading to a TD. Broken plays and being flat-out beaten in coverage are on the DBs, usually. But frequently, as you said, the secondary just looks bad because the line can't pressure the QB, and no DB, no matter how good, can cover forever.

Très vrai. Il y a des jeux où les demis sont la première ligne. La passe latérale, la passe rapide sur les lignes de côté, la passe rapide derrière les secondeurs lors d’un blitz, ce sont des jeux exécutés peu de temps après la remise où on cherche à contrer la pression du quart.

C’est plus sur les gains longs (+ de 20 verges) et moyens (16-20 verges) que la performance des demis est plus tributaire du jeu de la ligne défensive.

And on that note, Dix had better step it up against Calgary. With Seth Williams healthy, now is not the time for Dix to go into the tank. He was beaten badly by Barnes (say that 10 times really fast! :lol: ) in the Edmonton game. He needs to bounce back against the Stampeders.

As a chorus of boos rains down on the whole Edmonton offence
I can’t help thinking how silly it can be to judge anything on the strength of one game’s performance

While I’m pleased as anyone by the defence’s domination of the Eskies last week
It seems more than obvious that Edmonton is having problems
And not just at receiver

The Edmonton offensive line is in deep trouble
Obviously Ray needs more time, timing off with new receivers
But the Eskimos have suddenly lost the ability to run the ball too
And it’s clear the o-line are simply not getting the job done

So good on Moton Hopkins
And the rest of the guys
But I’m thinking our own problems on d
May have only taken a week off

Edmonton is in a complete free fall. Probably the worst four consecutive games I've seen since the US expansion.

There has been no official announcement from the Alouettes, but all indications Monday night are that rush-end Luc Mullinder has been released after playing only one game with Montreal.
~Als Inside/Out

So I was saying we should be cautious about about the state of our defence based on one outing against a team that's experiencing a total breakdown on offence.
Well...I don't pretend to know what kind of salary cap issues are involved here
I assume Popp would have thought of that before getting Mullinder in the first place

This kind of move is exactly what I was warning against
Let's hope the Moton Hopkins enthusiasm is warranted...all things considered...and that once again Popp knows what he's doing.

Another thought:
I'd hate to think the team is going to dump Mullinder on the basis of that one penalty they benched him for
an offside I think it was...and it turned out that he was drawn offside
Anyone remember OJ Santiago?
One penalty and you get the hook
It's great being loyal to your established "guys" (think Maypray)
But axing the "new guy" on the basis of one mistake is a bit ruthless

:roll:

Very surprised to see Mullinder released. What the heck did we trade Baker for? So Mullinder could play one game over Sean Lucas?

Not a fan of this move at all.

The Als appear to be up against the salary cap, and sometimes moves have to be made that aren`t always going to be popular, but usually turn into a non-factor.

Mullinder was high priced, the Als had a chance to assess him, and probably now felt Hopkins was better value. Mullinder was asked to take a pay cut and had the right to refuse, which he did. We will see if anyone picks him up.

As for Baker, as desperate as Sask. was for receivers, they did not dress him their last 2 games.

I would also expect Steenbergen to be traded to B.C. or perhaps Edmonton.

I don't have a problem with Mullinder's release. I'd rather see us play players we drafted and developed. Also Mullinder's head stayed in Vegina so I can understand that if he is to take a pay cut he's probably thinking he might as well play in Saskatchewan for less, maybe Miller is a fan of his ???

Steenbergen: He needs to play at this point to improve and It does not look like this will happen, Matte appears to be the backup tackle and Bomben the backup guard/center. Then they have Barrette and Bender in the system. Edmonton has no second round pick next year. So the only trade I could see would be Legare for Steenbergen. That would work for both teams. Not a huge fan of Legare but since Steenbergen has pretty much no way to crack Montreal's Oline, this might work.

We hear that Steenbergen is headed-rumeurs- to Edmonton for a late draft choice. If so, I expect that it will be a fourth or fifth round choice.

Mullinder is definitely not worth $100,000 or so; I doubt that someone will pay him this amount; once released/free, he will sign,at a lower salary, with another team. Bc,Calgary and Hamilton are possibilities.

Richard