Didn't see the word "defense" in the first paragraphs in what was wrong with HAM in 2012 so I stopped reading. Defense has been blown up. Offense has been barely touched. That's really everything you need to know about 2012.
You really should have kept reading, rather than writing about the fact that you stopped reading.
Some very blunt assessments of the team.
I started ignoring the Toronto media's sports coverage in the 90's and it was one of the best decisions and I have stuck to it ever since. I'm sure there are a few fair writers but most of them just look down at anything outside of Toronto.
Any good Ticat fan should never care about anything the Toronto media has to say.
I give Ziccarelli credit for finding funny things in the stats to point out but lets face it coaching decisions and playcalling were relatively minor factors to the burden the defense placed on the team as a whole.
Didnt even mention how team basically tuned out Creehan since training camp and didnt provide defensive statitistics and what a bad defense does to offensive decision making.
Don't under estimate the effect George Cortez had on the defence. Not all of it was Creehan.
The article was very well written.
I disagree. Coaching decisions and play calling were terrible, just as bad as the defence. You could say the defence lost us some games, and you could say coaching and play calling lost us just as many games.
Actually it did mention that exact topic and no one else really needs to hear about the Cats’ defence. The whole country already knows all about it.
I found there were a few bizarre comments, especially the ones about Fantuz and C Williams. I thought Fantuz started slow, and just as he started to get in sync with Burris, he ended up getting injured. He started to show his abilities by the end of the year. And Williams was used underneath fairly often, not just sent on a streak. High risk / high reward? He's half right - I didn't really see much risk there.
And nowhere in the article does it mention the number of injuries we had on defence. At one point, there were six starters on the IR. Six out of twelve, and we wonder why we couldn't get any consistency out of our defence?
I read the article twice, and I didn't see any reference to Creehan's lack of support from his players. And while the article mentioned that the two and outs will have a negative impact of the defence, it doesn't mention the impact of a defence that can't stop the other team on the offence, forcing them to take more risks in order to score enough to have a chance to win.
I thought the article was well written and while the writer didn't note everything some of you guys wanted to read,
he took a constructive look at our team and wrote his personal assessment.
I found it interesting that he spoke about Canadian depth, particularly on defense and he noted that our depth
may get even better when the May 6th draft occurs.
A few criticisms, but overall, a good article.
Yeah I do remember reading a couple bizarre things and you made a good point about the defence influencing the offence on two and outs. Overall though I'd say it was a good article from the point of view of an outsider.
I wasn't referring to Creehan's lack of support from players. I read somewhere in it where he mentioned the coaches started losing the room in training camp. I'm not going to read it again to find it though 8)
I have to agree with your analysis CFO, and would like to add that the high number of 2 and outs may be explained by the Cats having to go half the season without a running back who could consistently get yards on routine carries. While AC was getting into game shape, not being able to run the ball for 4 yards on first downs or 2 yards when you need them on second downs really skews the 2 and out stats.
That, and Cortez's inexplicable aversion to using Stala on second down and Porter on third and short.
Here's hoping Mallet lives up to his reputation - and his name - in being able to force those extra yards.
[b]CatsFaninOttawa wrote: while the article mentioned that the two and outs will have a negative impact of the defence, it doesn't mention the impact of a defence that can't stop the other team on the offence, forcing them to take more risks in order to score enough to have a chance to win.[/b]very true CFO. On far too many occasions, the Cats were playing perpetual catch up due to the collapse of the D not only early in the game, yet especially the 3rd quarter meltdowns, which forced the offensive unit to gamble more often.
take away the aforementioned 2 quarters and our team has a winning record. :?
While not perfect, and journalists can never come close due to simply not knowing everything the team and coaching staff have to deal with, this Toronto Sun piece was a well-written, informative, and entertaining story.