Why do they continually start Beveridge instead of Barker? Beveridge was known to be slower but somewhat smarter than Barker due to experience. From watching the first 4 games, he has now lost not only a step but he isnt playing smart at all. Way out of position is an understatement, and when offences game plan to set receivers one on one versus Beveridge (like Montreal did right away last night), he just cant make that play due to lack of speed. If we dont play Barker as a starter soon, we can say good bye to him and say hello to Barker the Saskatchewan Rider one day. Lets wake up.
Why do we have to 'hope' that Palardy improves over time, while we pay for field position in the present? Why do we have to 'settle' when their are obviously better alternatives out there, imort or non-import. Even Westwood is a short term major improvement, and i am not even suggesting that he is 'the guy'. Medlock would be awesome to do both punting and place kicking. He has a stronger place kicking leg and he can punt too. Will he come here? Maybe not, but we have to take this serious or 1-3 becomes 1-8 soon.
Why do we always shrug things off as 'oh its only one game" whenever we are in a rut? These games add up and then become too late to catch up. We have to have a sense of urgency or else this will be another long season.
Why is there no imagination on offence? Why was Gibson given the OC job when he is technically an offensive line coach? Why was Burrato given the Offensive Line Coach position when he is better known as an Offensive Co-ordinator?
Why are we not creative on 3rd and short? Everyone knew last night that Cobb was getting the ball and you dont have to be a coach to figure that out. It is just so frustrating when we keep on making bone head plays and bone head decisions that affect the success of the team. I am sure players talk to other players and players talk to themselves about the lackadaisical attitude of our team. Their just doent seem to be any rush to be proactive, instead we remain reactive, which 9 times out of 10 means we end up on the wrong side of the spectrum.
Why are we not more aggressive on defence, with blitzing as a major component of our system? When we blitz we rattle qb's and that was evident last night. When we just send four, we get pressure but we dont rattle anyone.
Why do we not continue to bring in players to improve? No matter how many players we brought to camp, we still ended up with Heyward as the lone rookie starter, and that is because of an injury. Otherwise it is the same lineup. Does that mean that our starting 24 are all stars, or does that mean that the rookie signings were not good enough? I dont think that there is definitely no means of improving on our starting 24. If that is the feeling, we are in trouble.
Having said that, if we have the right 24, do we have the right systems in place? Is this the best we can do? Is their no room for improvement? Are we to ride this out without a sense of urgency?
Just a lot of frustrating things happening, and they have been happening for a while. Last night i was talking to a friend at halftime and i said 'we missed so many opportunities to score big in the first half, but we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot' especially against Montreal. I said 'i am afraid that the majority of our chances were in that first half when we had some semblance of an offence clicking, and that we would find a way to give the game up in various ways' (fumbles, interceptions, turnover on downs, penalties, lack of offence etc), and all that happened in the second half.
The bottom line is we are too predictable as a team; we have no sense of urgency; we dont play every game as a playoff game with full intensity; we are happy with the status quo; and we just never seem to create an identity like those of the Alouettes and Riders, teams which know that winning means everything.