Taaffe's gaffes

I have been patient, but at 2 and 13 the poor coaching can no longer be ignored.

Blatant, inexcusable mistakes by Charlie today:

  1. Failure to challenge Sask's interception. Replays showed he did not have control. Risk for challenging the call = 0. For some unknown reason, the call was not challenged.
  2. At the end of the half the clock ran out without a FG. Taaffe while interviewed by TSN said " We had 28 seconds and I wanted Ritchie to throw it away if he had to so we could take a timeout and kick the FG."
    MEMO to Charlie: This is CANADIAN football. You should have called the timeout on second down. There would have been no question about time being left to kick. You DO NOT NEED any more than one second remaining at the whistle to kick. Timeout unnecessary for 3rd down!
  3. Our last chance drive beginning at our own 5 and our best player--Cauley---is on the bench.
  4. 3rd down with 2:30 left and we kick. We were down 16 points. That is 2 X 8. The coach gave up. Why?
  5. As if it weren't bad enough, Charlie gave them 40 points by declining the no yards in the end zone with 3 seconds left.
    Those extra ten yards really paid off, didn't they?

No other coach has had a poorer season and survived. I do not want more change for the sake of change....but......I don't want to be 0 and 8 next year and firing our coach and begging Ron to come back again...............

I must agree.

Scott Mithcell probably has the only safe seat after this season.

There are many questions....but some illogical decisions made not isolated to today.....going for it on 3rd down last week and earlier in the season when we needed a FG and a TD........
?

im not sure but in the second q did Taaffe decline a penalty on the kick off and give sask an 8 point lead instead of making them rekick???

I think he gave them a single when they were called for no yards.....with 1:40 in the half.
We marched down the field but you have to wonder about giving up a point with so little time left...

This team has not had a hurry-up offense all season and today it cost us again. The man behind me at today’s game was from Montreal and he was saying how much they had wanted Taafe back. After the bone-headed plays today he was wondering where Charlie left his coaching brains. To kick a field goal with six minutes left and behing by twelve points was meaningless. We only needed four yards for the first down. The field goal meant nothing other than to pad the kickers stats so we can justify keeping an import playing at that position. We hear repeatedly that we are going forward with this coaching staff. Well WE are no longer going forward with this coaching staff, because I"ve had it with them and if we stick with them after this very laughable coaching decacle then I’m outta here with my $600. clutched firmly in my hand.

He has made some very poor coaching calls in other games as well.

This is not the first time he has not use his time outs when he could have and as a result lost a chance to get a field goal.

I realize he has been out of the league for a few years, but at this point in the season, give me a break.

Tommyboy1- It really freaks me out when someone gets in my head like this.

While I was boiling on my 1.5 hour trip home to London I was thinking about the post I was going to make re Taffe's ineptitude/disinterest in the game. Every one of your points were valid and on my list.

I think we were out-coached by Austin. While I don't think the video that I saw was good enough to over-turn our play to the 1, Austin made a great call to challenge. Taffe should have done the same. I guess he couldn’t be bothered. Same goes for calling the timeout. Coaches can call the timeout at anytime before the ball is snapped. He should have called it when it got to 15 sec. That would have given us time to run a play and still kick if needed. I guess he couldn’t be bothered/didn’t think of it.

I also think he should have pulled Anderson off after the wrestling match in the 4th. I guess he couldn’t be bothered because he (Anderson) took a 15 yarder the next play.

While I only coach high school football and cannot compare myself to a pro coach, he did make decisions that left me thinking I should apply next year.

Anderson was benched after the penalty.

Im pretty sure they didnt have a timeout left as they used it when Printers went down.

[quote="whoknows
Im pretty sure they didnt have a timeout left as they used it when Printers went down.
[/quote]
I didn't think so either...but Taaffe said on TSN that he "wanted Ritchie to take a shot at the endzone and if nothing was there he should throw it away and call a timeout so they could kick"
Teams don't usually call timeouts when someone is hurt.....again, not smart teams. They tell the guy to stay down and let the back up warm-up. There is no time limit to being hurt....
Another thing that should have, but didn't, happen....

Who in their right mind would ask let alone beg Lancaster to come back???

This should be another thread......but .... Ron won us a Grey Cup and took us to another.
He coached us when we were uncoachable and may well have saved football by somehow fielding a team (as successful as the one we have now) when we had no resources--no money---no front office...nothing.

Last year he coached us to 4 wins in 14 games with what most on here agree was a poorer team.....

We should be thanking Ron Lancaster, believe me.

Agree Mark 77, nobody would ask Ron back, the game has moved on, and I'm confident that he would not want the job, either...nobody wants to have to pay back their CPP benefits and Ronnie must be pushing 70...the extra expenses of defibrillator stations at the sidelines would push him out of our budget!

(A wonderful QB of his day, a great coach and I wish CBC would hire him back as a commentator) Worthy of great respect!

didnt charlie originally hire a guy who was older than ronnie to run his defence? I remember something about that, is that guy still around?

What do you mean by "still around"...?

Yes it was Rod or Ron Rust...

just couldnt think of his name, thats all, thanks

I disagree with #1.

The Rider DB did have control of the ball,took a few steps even,then the ball was punched out ..... a fumble.

Charlie and spotters made the correct decision.

The others can be discussed with Charlie.

He didn't have control and he didn't make a "football move" or survive the hit.
Even Glen Suitor thought so.
The fact that we are even discussing it is reason enough to throw the flag and have it reviewed.....there is ZERO risk...you get one freebie!!