The Impact of Ticat Defence on Field Too Long in 2006

When a football team has a losing season, one of the more popular football cliches is "The defence was on the field too long." It was often said during the Ticats' 4 win and 14 loss season in 2006 and the statement turned out to be correct. However, how much impact did being on the field too long really have? Here are some surprising stats obtained from the cfl.ca website.

During the course of the 2006 CFL regular season, the Ticat offence possessed the ball an average of 28 minutes, 18 seconds per game (7th in the league)and the Argo offence actually possessed the ball for slightly less time at 28 minutes, 13 seconds per game (8th in the league). So, yes both the Ticat and Argo defences were on the field almost equally too long.

The Ticat defence allowed an average of 131.6 yards per game rushing (7th in the league) and the Argo defence allowed an average of 135.0 yards per game rushing (8th in the league). However, there is a huge discrepancy in passing defence: the Ticat defence allowed 262.6 yards per game passing (6th in the league) while the Argo defence only allowed an average of 224.7 yards per game passing (1st in the league).

The conclusion is that a football team can still win games even if its defence is "on the field too long" if it has the coaching, the talent and the attitude to do so. Let's hope the Ticat defence has all of those things in 2007 and that the Ticat offence gives them more help this year.

It wasn't that defenders were blowing their assignments
on the same play all over the field last year.

It was that when a player made a mistake
no team-mate jumped in to cover for him

If one had, instead of failing,
the play may have still worked.

Coach Sal straightened that out
with the O-line in his first game.

Lets hope the new coaches stress that
in teaching our players our new system.

P.S.

Games got busted wide open early on last year
and our Defence sagged and lost their intensity.

That is just human nature.

Hopefully our Defence will be up to speed quickly
so we can start out winning some low scoring games.

near the end of the saeason, last 3-4 game our defence was good, really good, db's making plays gettin hits in and hustlin, d-line crap, i think with a good d-line n a couple more signing at LB we will have a wicked defence! now lets get sum WR in here marcel! KWAME!!

I agree with your analysis, TCTD. Those exact stats have been brought up before, but there are people who still maintain that our D was on the field for a significantly longer time than anyone else's. I'm not sure where they get their info, but it isn't based on fact. To me, it's hard to argue that last year's defence is ready for prime time. Apparently the official blame rests with the D-line, since we're seeing complete turnover at those positions.

One of the factors that make it seem that the defence was on the field too long is the high number of 2-and-out's that our struggling offence had. Another is the number of times we had to send out the special teams (as a result of getting scored on too often).

There were also far too many penalties that sustained drives for the opposition, and that seems to have bee addressed by the revamping of the D-line (props to ExPat for that).

(TCTD) The conclusion is that a football team can still win games even if its defence is "on the field too long" if it has the coaching, the talent and the attitude to do so. Let's hope the Ticat defence has all of those things in 2007 and that the Ticat offence gives them more help this year. ____________________________________________-
(ronfromtigertown) It was that when a player made a mistake no team-mate jumped in to cover for him

If one had, instead of failing,
the play may have still worked.

Coach Sal straightened that out
with the O-line in his first game.


You make some excellant points in your analyses, TCTD. I agree with all of it.

ronfromtigertown: Coach Sal, as you suggest made some very positive moves last season with our defense. His knowledge of operating a defense became apparrant almost from the time he took over, which begs the question, what will Coach Sal be doing durong the 2007 season? I'm hoping he still has some kind of connection to the team, if not, I'd like to hear more from him on the 5th quarter. His special insight is always interesting and he sees things others miss in his own analyses.

Thanks to ronfromtigertown for pointing out a mistake I made in my last post when I placed Coach Sal in a new role as coach of the defensive line. Obviously, he coached the offenseive line and showed immediate results.

I'm writing from Fort Myers, Florida and I think that this beautiful climate down here has had an effect on my thinking.

I hear I've missed a lot of snow up north, but I have no regrets.
Unfortunately, I'm driving back about March 5th.

In addition to being on the field too long is that opposing offences had a short field to work with which almost always resulted in at least a field goal.

and a quick return to the field by the Defence!

The other thing that hurt our defence last year was the fact that they generally couldn't stop other teams from moving up and down the field at will.

I know this explanation fails to blame the offence or the special teams for the defence's woes, yet I would suggest it is a more relevant explanation by a long shot.

i dont buy the theory of a defense on the field too long if they excuted(sp) properly they could be off the field in 2 or at least 3 plays and how many times last season did the defense give the offense the ball inside the opposition's 40 yard line or for that matter how many times did the special temas give the offense good field position