Ti-Cats vs. Eskimos

[Fixed the title for you. Cheers, Bob.]

OK - I'm ready to move on from game 1; on to game 2!

A few bright spots from last game:

  1. With no sacks (or even a hurry worth mentioning) our defensive backfield didn't do as badly as years past.
  2. With Figs and Simmons switched up I take that to mean Austin knows he has a problem on o-line and is working on it.
  3. Somehow I'd rather watch Collaros make rookie mistakes than watch Hank have an off-night.

Now what can we look forward to on Friday? (Please someone tell me Rod Black isn't calling the game!)

Tiger Cats vs Edmonton....................

In a pass-oriented offense weather is a factor, at least it was in Regina. And the weather for Friday in Edmonton is going to be perfect for football. I suspect we are in for a high scoring and very entertaining game.

Not unless the O-line gets it together. Time to come to reality. No Hage, No Dyakowski, no chance

We are going to get crushed.

We are not going to get crushed, Edmonton's lines are not as good as the Riders'. But if Riley plays as well as he did against BC we may be outscored.

Hi Bob,

Not sure if you can delve into this but I'm reading the book "Soccernomics" which delves into the world of objective data analysis in sport (ie Billy Beane, the Oakland As & Moneyball)...

To what extent are such methodologies being employed by the Tiger-Cats or other CFL clubs and could one say that our roster turnover this year, especially at QB, has been dictated by such means or merely the gut instincts of our football staff? Our roster turnover will be the topic of discussion regardless of how the year plays out so it is especially curious given we made it to the Grey Cup last year.

Hopefully we play better in the trenches this week in Edmonton..

Collaros probably made more bad throws and/or bad decisions in one game than Burris made in half the season last year. And by the way, Collaros is not a rookie and he certainly isn't being paid like one.

Thanks for fixing the title for me Bob!

I agree Collaros isn't a true rookie - but this is his first full season - so he's half a rookie. I think the potential is there with Zach (As much I liked Hank he could be terribly frustrating at times to watch). With some protection Collaros will be fine.

If we can get into a shoot-out we'll be ok.

By no means am I saying that Zach had an acceptable game this past Sunday, because he didn't. But to say that; "Collaros probably made more bad throws and/or bad decisions in one game than Burris made in half the season last year." is simply not accurate at all.

Zach was 19 for 33 for 159 yards with 1 TD & 1 Interception. A 57.6% completion rate. QB Rating of 67.6.

Last season, Henry had 6 games with a QB rating lower than 67.6. (July 7th vs EDM, July 21st vs SSK, Sept 21 vs MTL, Sept 28 vs CGY, Nov 20 vs MTL & Nov 24th vs. SSK)

Burris had a completion % lower than Zach's 57.6 in 5 different games last season.

Hank had 4 games with less yards than the 159 that Zach threw for Sunday.

Henry had a TD to INT ratio equal to Zach's 1:1 twice last year but also had a worse TD/INT ratio 9 different times/games.

Watch/Take a look at these games ... July 7th vs EDM, July 21st vs SSK, Sept 21 vs MTL, Sept 28 vs CGY, Oct 20 vs MTL & Nov 24th vs. SSK ... and you will see some similarities. 1. Saskatchewan as the opponent. 2. Blitzing/Stunting D that the Oline has trouble adapting to (Mtl games). 3. Horrible conditions like this past Sunday as were the case in Guelph versus EDM. 4. An absolutely horrible performance versus Calgary in Calgary.

To say it took Henry half a season to amass the number of "bad throws and/or bad decisions" is simply not true. Just look at the Calgary game alone or the July 21st & GC Games versus Saskatchewan or the September 21st & Oct 20th games versus Montreal or finally the Edmonton game in torrential conditions July 7th.

Again, I'm not saying Zach played well Sunday ... but to make such a false statement for pure hyperbolic means ...

Joe,
Haven't read Soccernomics but did read the NYT review just now:

[url=http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/soccernomics/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0]http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/0 ... blogs&_r=0[/url]

I love this MoneyBall approach to sport, and agree it is important. But it is only one element of a successful team. Had the pleasure of listening to Billy Beane speak at an event last year and he was the first one to debunk the idea that the A's embrace of statistics was the cause of their success. His argument was it was one important element of their success. He argues their success was the result of having a great management team. His one complaint with the movie MoneyBall was the depiction of the A's scouts being skeptical of the statistics. He insisted it was just the reverse - that the success of their use of statistics to identify under-valued players was because his scouting staff were all very involved in the effort.
Interesting problem with using this approach in football is that the data is thin. In baseball each team plays 162 games in a season, in football we only play 18. In baseball there are a lot of individual plays that can be tracked, at-bats, pitches thrown, on-base percentage, etc... In football most plays are the result of a combination of players' action. For a pass to be completed the O-line has to do its job, the receiver has to run his route properly, and the QB has to throw the ball accurately. So you get fewer statistics and those you compile are less insightful.
But there are some very useful football stats we are looking at. My favourite is kicking field goals in the red zone. All the statistics show that you are much better off going for the touchdown (chance to earn 7 points) than attempting a field goal (only 3 points) from within the 5 year line on third down. Yet CFL coaches routinely chose to kick a field goal because they worry about losing "momentum" if they go for the TD and don't make it.
What would you do?

My apologies … I made a transposition error.

Henry had a TD to INT ratio equal to Zach’s 1:1 once last year but also had a worse TD/INT ratio 10 different times/games.

Thanks Fender - Love the detailed analysis.

Bob,

Have you looked into the statistics involving punting? I'm not sure how they would translate to the three down game however. http://grantland.com/features/grantland-channel-coach-never-punts/

Depends if your O-line is any good. In the case of the Ti-Cats currently, take the three! :slight_smile:

That is a great story. Not sure how high school football statistics compare to CFL stats, but I'd bet even at the pro level the numbers argue against punting on 3rd and less than 2.

You certainly love your stats. However, most of your stats have to do with passing yards and completions or are used inappropriately. Zack held the ball way too long this past game and that is a bad play not reflected in passing stats. Moreover, not diagnosing the blitzes and deer in the headlights play are bad plays that are not really reflected in any of your stats except perhaps QB rating although perhaps not.

Hank was pulled in some of those games and the stats reflect that. Zack was left in and continued the bad play. Not to mention that comparing stats of players like Hank with 14 years experience to a player like Zack with 2 is a faulty analysis. Hank's experience most likely meant that he was given a larger, more complex set of game day plays and scenarios. He was also playing with a lot of first year receivers and backs. (Recall if you will his statement after joining the REDBLACKS that inexperienced payers would not be an issue as he had been "changing the diapers" of rookies for two years in Hamilton.)

Zack probably does not enjoy the breadth of playbook (read:vanilla) and has more experienced receivers and backs to get the ball to. A situation where he should have a much better statistical showing, and yet he doesn't. This would create a situation where Hank would have more opportunity to have "bad days" and bad stats just by playing the game he was asked to play whereas Zack is probably being asked only to do good and with much less stress.

Unless all other possible variables are exact, comparing players with stats is not very accurate. And, as such, the original statement would not at all be hyperbole and in a broader analysis is quite accurate.

The Weather in Regina was horrible on Sunday, I feel sorry for the people who's property is under water right now but the Rider fans sure turned out for the game as did the Riders, I agree Hamilton could play better under drier conditions but hey this is football and a team should be ready to play no matter what the conditions are, rain, snow, sleet, hail whatever?

Our offensive line needs to give Colaros better protection in order for this team to go anywhere this year. I don't agree in moving Simmons and Figerola around from last year, hey if it worked why mess it up, Figerola looked bewildered in that spot, maybe this guy D.J. Young will add something I hope?

In regards to punting I agree if less than a couple of yards might as well go for it unless backed up in your own end, that was a nice punt by Medlock down inside the 10 and he almost had the coffin corner on the one punt but it just slightly sailed into the end zone and out for a single. I think Medlock is coming along on the punting and getting his stride back.

EAT EM RAW IN EDMONTON TIGER-CATS!!!

You make some valid points.
Something else that isn't reflected in Collaros' statistics: There number of ill-advised, high risk passes into very tight or double coverage that, luckily, were not picked off. They show as incompletions but were the result of bad decisions because they should't have been thrown into such coverage in the first place. I seem to recall several of those in the Rider game.

While we're talking about stats and production...

Caretaker not only replied to his team's fans, but did so FOUR times in one thread?

That's gotta be a record in pro-sports.