The Prevent Defence

Once again...prevented winning.

Why the 3 man rush? Saskatchewan was only looking for a field goal, not a touchdown. They had more than a minute left, which in this league, is an eternity.

I looked down at the sidelines and I could have sworn it was the ghost of Don Sutherin calling the defence on that last possession.

ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCK LOL

I defend Sudsy to the hilt except for the last series of the 1998 Grey Cup game. For me, you can have 7 guys standing 30 yards back at the snap, but you have to send a minimum of five guys (front four and a blitzer) to put some pressure on the QB in that situation. Simply put, the completion percentage of any QB goes down when harried.

I wasn't surprised at the result when I heard that on the Dressler TD that we only rushed three. I will never understand that reasoning, either.

Oski Wee Wee,

Hey, it was a 6 yard pass, so the 3 man rush with the 9 man drop should have been the perfect defence.

Not this time.

It was the right defensive call.

Light pressure on a QB in a passing league is never the "right defensive call". Too much time for the QB to look around and too much time for receivers to find open space, even agianst 9 DBs. The field is too big to give the O that advantage. Clearly, the wrong defensive call. If it was right the Cats would have won.

Short passes with speedy receivers usually turn into nightmares for opposing defences. As I said... Sask. only needed a FG, not a TD. Even 6 yard passes would have had them well within range with as much time as they had left on the clock.

Bad Call. Wrong Call. Jury is already back with the verdict. We lost.

Actually the Riders used a 2 man rush a number of times against Edmonton to great effect. It had RR totally confused as to whom to pass to.

Disagree. You do not defend the short, quick drop passing game with blitzes. It's suicide.

The big play was a freak happening. Perry Lefko says as much, " It was the right defence, just a fluke play that yielded huge yardage. "