Stampeders' Grey Cup win proves Creehan has got to go

Ya, I hear what you're saying. It's just that I don't think the players you mentioned are of the quality to make a defence go from worst to first in one season no matter who the defensive coach was.

I'm not denying that they did have some impact on that, it's just that I think the D co-ordinator and his scheme would have a much greater influence that could in such a dramatic swing.

Case in point: Montreal's offensive line. New blocking scheme, same line. Dramatically improved pass protection for AC.

Holy smokes!

I just looked up Montreal's stats for sacks given up.

They went from worst to first too.

2007 - 68 sacks given up - last (Bellefeuille's system, I beileve)
2008 - 22 sacks given up - first.

So not only are we saddled with Creehan who had the worst defence last year and this year, we're also saddled with Bellefeuille's pass protection which was the worst last year in Montreal and again this year in Hamilton.

Sheesh! Those are some brutal numbers.

Hamiton's sack numbers

2007 - 49 sacks given up - 5th
2008 - 67 sacks given up - last (Bellefeuille's system)

Ouch! Two years in a row Bellefeuille's pass protection has been dead last giving up 68 and 67 sacks.

The second worst amount of sacks given up in 2007 was 52 and the second worst amount of sacks given up for 2008 was 48.

That's a pretty big gap between last and 2nd last.

The gap for 2007 is 16 and the gap for 2008 is 19, about a sack per game.

I'm losing my cause for optimism. Somebody help me!

AHHHHHH!

Furthermore, Hamilton attempted the fewest number of passes all year and STILL gave up the most sacks of any other team by far!

HELP ME!

I'm not looking at any more stats!

As I said earlier I cant jump on the Fire Creehan Bandwagon just yet until he's proven he cant get the job done with quality players. He has some now that are trickling in but not enough yet. Some say its his schemes that are at fault but who says a "good" scheme always works even with garbage players. Like my defense for Lancaster, Taaffe: You cant coach crap.

People forget it wasnt so long ago Creehan was highly thought of and respected and fielded quality defenses.

[url=http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/Calgary/2005/01/15/899564-sun.html]http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/ ... 4-sun.html[/url]

Through 05-06 Creehan had a solid difference but in 07? A raft of rookies/newcomers obviously meant a change for the worse in quality of players he had to work with the nhe was fired:

[url=http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/sports/stampeders/story.html?id=b5259ee6-ed3c-422b-afcf-5a130b3249a5&k=17924]http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/new ... a5&k=17924[/url] [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/10/01/stampeders-creehanfired.html]http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/10/01 ... fired.html[/url]

Creehan explains his fustrations with that:

http://www.thespec.com/article/306643

So if one is looking for a conclusion it can either be good players make Creehan a good coach OR Creehan could be a good coach if only when he's given talent.

I'm going with the latter for now.

**In 06 third in points allowed and second in sacks. 07 third in points allowed.

Seems to me like he's lost his touch then.

Either we have to get a coach in here who can be successful or a GM who can find better players. When you have as many players auditioning as we have this year, there comes a point when you have to put some of the blame for the lack of success of the coaching staff.

I saw very few adjustments made. During some games the winning team ran the same play against us (successfully) more than 10 times. That is a big problem.

A distinct posibility or his coaching record is a direct reflection of the quality of players he's given. (07-08)

That may be true, but how much patience should we have?? Mine has certainly run out.

Good point.
But some defended Kavis Reed even after two years 'cause the “offense had the defense on the field too long” etc.
Creehan might be a futile discussion anyway: with a new head coach (who interviwed another DC) and a 3-15 record I woudnt risk betting a nickel on him returning.

These stats show otherwise: http://www.cfl.ca/uploads/stats_pdf/2007/reg_5.pdf

06 Calgary was tied for 4th in sacks and 07 last in points allowed.

Where are you getting your stats from?

BTW, great articles you provided there. I just don't know what to think. In thsoe articles he attributes some of the defensive difficulties in 2007 to a bunch of new starters, but didn't they have a bunch of new starters and a new scheme this year? I just don't know.

I just looked up time of possesion for 2007 and 2008 because a bad offense can lead to the defense being on the field "all the time", thus giving up more yards and points that they really should have.

In 2007 Calgary was in the middle of the pack with a time of possession average of 30:02

in 2008 Hamilton was second to the last with a time of posession of 28:58. I figured it would have been worse. So last year the opposing team averaged 2:04 more with the football. Not sure how much that would affect inflated defensive numbers.

Opinions?

OK, got years mixed up in "defensive rankings" I have Cal tied for fourth in sacks with (39) and third in fewest points allowed in 2006.

In 2005 (not 07 like I said) they were second in sacks (47) and fourth out of nine in points allowed.

Oh, ok.

I goofed too and I corrected my mistake ( but it doesn't appear in your quote of me) where I said they were 6th in sacks.

I just counted down the list and saw they were listed sixth without looking the actual amounts and the fact that they were actually tied for fourth.