The Riders would have won if......

you know the procedure.

If they scored more points? They lost - It's the Al's party for the next 6 months then time for next season to get started :cowboy:

Cant really blame Durant for trying on that last play. Either way, even if that pass wasnt intercepted it would have still be 3rd and a mile. His recievers (namely Getzlaf) let him down, but are the reason we were there in the first place this year. Calvillo has been around the block, and reads defenses so well. We did what we had to do to win, but at the end of the game we came up probably one play too short yet again (IE the fake punt that led to a Montreal score).

a shot at 3rd & 20 > other team winning the grey cup ... Durant never ever ever should have thrown that ball (or should've thrown it into the stands at least instead of throwing a duck 200 feet in the air.. it was clear that was a pick as soon as he threw it providing whichever Als' defender got to it remembered his hands)

Durant sucks.

...Runs from Sask mob

YERFACE

I don't think he sucks but he sure isn't the elite QB he was hyped up to be.At least not yet.

I don't know if he will be. Someone said he's 28. He's had 20+ turnovers in each of the last two seasons...

Hopefully, he will focus on becoming better... Ron Lancaster is considered on the greats and he threw 396 INTs to 333 TDs... IMO, he should have taken the sack rather than toss up the duck he threw.

Heh That's worse than Brett Favre.

In my opinion, Sask wins because Sask plays as a team, not because Durant is a great QB. I think Sask could have any halfway decent QB and still find ways the win. They play as a team. I know it's a cliche to say football is the ultimate team sport, but it is, and I think that's why Sask wins.

There was a field goal's difference between him and a future Hall of Famer today. And that was with Sask missing one of its top receivers (Bagg).

Durant will be just fine. McManus threw plenty of picks too and it didn't stop him from winning championships.

Where do you think he was throwing it? Of course he was trying to get it into the stands to avoid the sack - he wasn't trying to hit a receiver - but he was in the grasp of a defender and couldn't get anything behind the throw to get it out of bounds. I don't blame him for trying at all - he gave it his all on that play just to avoid the sack but it turned out bad. Durant's play on that particular play did not lose the game for the Riders - even if he took the sack like you imply, it's 3rd and 20-ish. Chances are remote they would have gotten a first down.

but they would have had a chance, as a qb your FIRST priorty is ball security, without it you can never win, i know he was trying, but it was going against a very good point chief mentioned, the team play of ssk, DD on that play tried to make a play himself, rather than eating the ball and taking at least one more shot. it was the wrong decision but he is an inexperienced qb playing from behind in the biggest game of the year. easy to judge now. either way the als out played ssk in the second half by far more than is implied in the score. take away damon duval's attempts to try and lose the game again and i dont think that last INT has really any affect on the game, but thats just my opinion, pure speculation. so please dont crusify me :smiley: :thup: great game tho, another classic grey cup

I expected Durant to make a poor pass who would cost the game, but I think honestly he was a bit unlucky on that one.
He avoided the sack miraculously and attempted to get it out of bounds, but was hit and it got deflected. Easy pick.
I dont really fault him for that.

what play were you watching? he did not get hit as he threw it, he was being dragged down and decided to throw it. big difference between misjudging the speed or timing of the defender and at the last second trying to do too much and losing a game, tonight was the latter.

The Riders did not lose this game on that last throw by Durant. Just like they did not lose last year's GC on that last play field goal.

The Alouettes won both GCs by out-playing the Riders for the ENTIRE 2nd half. All of it. Both years.

Regarding this year's game, the Riders did not compensate for the Als' half-time adjustments, especially their defensive adjustments. The Rider offense stalled completely in the 2nd half. Is that DD making bad reads? Maybe partially. But not entirely. Coach Berry did not adjust his schemes once the Als had obviously figured out how to stop the Rider game plan. The Riders were out-coached. Rider fans can expect this sort of thing to continue if Berry stays on, or (God forbid) becomes head coach. I won't even start on Daley here. (At least he was smart enough to have a different kick returner this game!)

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that the Riders blew this game. Montreal won it. They deserve it, and they earned it. They were the better team. No one should take anything away from them for this victory. Full credit.

To get back on topic, The Riders would have won if.....Berry could have come up with offensive adjustments and a game plan that actually maximizes the skillset of his QB and offensive players.

I would say it was the lack of defensive adjustments by the riders at halftime that cost them the game. When the als went to a short and quick passing game the riders' defence that played lights out in the first half looked very human all of a sudden. The coaching was definitely the difference in this one.

I agree very much with the people that say that Durant's last throw was not what cost the riders the game. He was trying to get the ball out of bounds but because he had just struggled out of the grasp of a linebacker and had a DE bearing down on him he couldnt get enough on the throw to get it out of bounds and Parker made an athletic play to come up with an interception

I'll agree that coaching was a major factor yesterday.

I thought, going in, that the Riders' D wouldn't be as effective as in the previous Grey Cup because I did not believe that the Riders had adequately replaced Chick and Baggs. In the first half, Etcheverry proved me wrong, and the RIders' D had great pressure on AC.

In the second half, Burke stood up at the plate and hit a home run with the Als' D. . . heck on the one sack Montreal got in the game (Bowman), they had both DEs, Stewart and Bowman, lined up at DT, with a LB (Ferri) and a CB (Estelle) lined up at the DE spots. . . much more creative defensive scheming than I'd been used to with Burke.

if they gave out game balls to coaches, Etcheverry and Burke are well deserving of same. I really enjoy watching good defence, and I was treated to just such a game yesterday.

If we hadn't been offside on the play before when Durant ran for 12 yards. If that play stands I think we're going to go to overtime but once we're at 1st and 15 Montreal just brings the house and that's it.

Thank you very much for saying that. It is refreshing to see someone take an honest look at how both games transpired. I have been saying since last year that the Als won the battle of the second half, particularly the final 8 minutes when we held Sask to punts and INTs and ourselves managed to score two touchdowns, a two-point convert, and the game-winning field goal. That win wasn't a fluke. It was well-deserved.

MadJack, couldn't agree more. When I saw Stewart and Bowman lined up inside, I couldn't help but tip my hat to Burke. Etcheverry also did a heck of a job containing us; I don't think you can fault him for the loss. When you hold one of the league's top offensive teams to 21 points in a championship game and you lose, you know the offense didn't rise to the challenge.