Trestman- Keep Giving Colbourne the Ball!

In last nights game Cobourne was indeed the MVP. He ran, he was a most effective receiver, he blocked and, played with great passion. The offensive was the most balanced I have seen all year. He both ran and received for over 100 yards in both these categories and, without doubt, Colbourne was the games MVP. The Agros have a good defense but always had to keep looking at Colbourne which helped the offensive line give time to Calvillo who demonstratred good play in both the long and short pass. The line play was up to the challenge on both offense and defense and, our defenders [ especially Estelle ] played with toughness- the Agro receivers must have been sore from the hits they received last night.

This was a frustrating game to watch because of all the penalties but, for an Als fan it was great fun.

Well, let's hope that the Als keep the attack well balanced. Toronto has an excellent defense but they had no idea how to stop Montreal last night.

That being said, I wonder what would have happened last night if Cobourne had less success when they first went to him on the ground. Seems to me that the Als often make the mistake of completely abandoning the run when Avon can only get a couple of yards on his initial carries.

Excellent point. Cobourne himself said after last night's game that he felt he needed to make big plays early because the coaches are quick to abandon the run if they feel it's not working. My personal belief is that if you're picking up 4-5 yards on first-down carries, the running game is working fine, but Trestman and Milanovich seem to have higher standards for the ground game. :?

Cobourne himself said after last night's game that he felt he needed to make big plays early because the coaches are quick to abandon the run if they feel it's not working
Wow I'm surprised that Avon would be so candid about it. It's uncharacteristic of a Trestman coached player. Could you post a link to that quote?

I totally agree. The running game is often about keeping the defenses honest. If they know all they have to do is stop the first 2 or 3 hand-offs and you'll abandon the run...you're QB will be scrambling for his life the rest of the game.

There's the occasional mention of how the OLine loves to run the ball. But looked at from their perspective, if the run is non-existent, they spend the entire game back-pedaling and trying to stop the flood. It must feel GREAT to bust some heads for a change...there was a lot of love between Cobourne and that offensive line last night. I hope they keep it up against the Riders.
Calgary showed Saskatchewans vulnerability to the run, and some pretty creative blocking schemes against those obtuse Rider defensive formations. With the extra practice time, the Als should be able to do the same.

Interestingly, TSN originally had a direct quote from Cobourne which has since been replaced on the game recap with a paraphrase:

But Montreal answered with a touchdown set up by Cobourne, who took a short pass and weaved 47 yards through the defence to the Toronto three.

"I was so indecisive I think that caused the fumble," said Cobourne. "For them to come back to me right away was right because I had to respond.

"But it wasn't just me. The big guys opened up big holes and I had to explode through."

He also felt he had to gain rushing yards because the Alouettes offence is quick to abandon the run when it's not working.

http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=328954

I wish I'd posted the link last night, because I'm not hallucinating that quote, believe me.

Only thing I can find now is this Avon quote from the Gazette recap:

"The coach got me the ball and I made plays," said Cobourne, who came into the game with a modest 44 carries for 228 yards. "Otherwise, he would have stopped going to me."

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/C ... z0vCL5oJlA

I'm not hallucinating that quote, believe me.
:lol: I believe you I stopped believing in independent journalism and the tooth fairy a long time ago.

He said it and Flory a formidable team player said that they needed to run the ball more. I think anyone with any knowledge of our game knew that once the Als abandon the run after two series if they are not getting the yards they want, won't touch it again unless they are killing the clock late in the fourth quarter. Tendancies were there for all to see. This is not the first time that Trestman has issues comiting to the run

Strange that an ex-NFL coach would be so allergic to running the football, but you're dead right. Incorporating the run into our attack has been a recurring issue since Trestman took over. I really hope, though, that he sees the difference it makes to our offense when we're balanced. Night and day, frankly. Calvillo stays clean, drives end in TDs not FGs, deep routes open up, time of possession swings in our favor, and receivers have more space in which to get open.

And it's not like Calvillo didn't throw the ball either. He finished the night with almost 400 yards passing! So giving Avon the ball isn't going to take passes away from Anthony or any of the receivers. Watkins and Cobourne both had 100-yard games in the air, Richardson was close to 100, and Green made great plays in the red zone.

And it's not like Calvillo didn't throw the ball either. He finished the night with almost 400 yards passing! So giving Avon the ball isn't going to take passes away from Anthony or any of the receivers
Exactly! What it "takes away" is the half-dozen or so two-and-outs they had in the second half against the Riders. I almost had a stroke when some Alouettes coach, instead of praising the team (and frankly, the critics) for the balanced attack they showed against Toronto...almost mockingly chided that the first series of downs was ALL pass, and led to a touchdown. Frankly, I was borderline the whole first quarter...until Cobourne got his first touch on the last play.
Incorporating the run into our attack has been a recurring issue since Trestman took over. I really hope, though, that he sees the difference it makes to our offense when we're balanced. Night and day, frankly. Calvillo stays clean, drives end in TDs not FGs, deep routes open up, time of possession swings in our favor, and receivers have more space in which to get open.
Wasn't Trestman brought in to solve those exact issues...especially protecting Calvillo? He surprised a lot of people when he stated last year that Cobourne's main task was protecting the quarterback....well in this case...the best "defense" is a good running play.

This may be sacrilege, and he's obviously a great motivator and player's coach...but...

Forgetting what down it is (never really quite bought THAT one) Throwing a challenge flag on a quarterback sneak, and then forgetting you're OUT of challenges? Is this guy as bright as we all think? He doesn't seem to have a clue on the "balanced offensive attack" issue. And try to get Adrian McPherson some quality playing time...other teams seem to find time for their back-up QB's. Maybe a little job security is a good thing....a lot can be disastrous.

Or is it ALL a Calvillo ego thing?

I tried to resist...I really did...but:

People are blaming the offensive line...the lack of running plays...
All valid points.
But the O-line HAS to be perfect, or near enough. Cobourne feels he HAS to make good on every running play, or else. WHY?

Because Anthony Calvillo is the most lead-footed quarterback in the CFL. Oh sure he can get that 10 yards if the whole opposing defense goes to sleep. And on cue...the TSN guys talk about how underrated his running ability is.
Horse hockey!!
This is a 3-down game. The quarterback that can run has a HUGE advantage...one that doesn't...well...

Just watch the Riders game again. Durant escaped almost every time the Als put pressure on him. The man is virtually un-sackable..and he was sick!!! Calvillo is just BEGGING to be sacked. And when pressure comes he goes into panic mode. I hear clucking...I swear I do!

Sure he's cut down on interceptions...he throws 5 yard passes until the defense is chloroformed into forgetting the deep ball. That's why he can't get into the endzone from the "red zone"...the short passes won't cut it, and he usually doesn't have the mobility to give himself time for the longer routes to mature. It's painful to watch...seeing him collapse in the pocket...wondering if he's fumbled the ball again. Second down has become a blitz-fest nightmare...or a dream come true for a DC. (Eskimos fans...Ricky Ray...are you listening?)

This is why the running game is SO important. Any other QB in the league (almost) will spread the defense, get them thinking "contain". It's vital to give Cobourne numerous shots...even IF a few plays are 2 yard gains. The odds are stacked against him...frankly it's a tribute to him and the O-line that he does so well, with an immobile QB handing the ball off from the shotgun. Anybody that's been watching can see that Cobourne's running as well as he EVER has in an Alouettes uniform...without that hitch people noticed the last year.

Please....PLEASE start running the ball...for the whole team's sake

True

En 2009, lorsque les Alouettes se plantaient, la réponse à leurs impasses étaient de donner le ballon à Cobourne, au sol et dans les airs. Ça ne fonctionnait pas toujours du premier coup, mais ça finissait toujours par provoquer quelque chose et éventuellement, les Alouettes retrouvaient leur rythme de croisière. Quand McPherson a remplacé Calvillo contre Hamilton l'an dernier, il a commencé sa première séquence en donnant le ballon à Cobourne pour se mettre dans l'ambiance. Il l'a fait 3 ou 4 jeux de suite, pour ensuite commencer à passer. Par la suite, les Tiger Cats n'ont jamais pu les rattraper : l'attaque était en marche.

Cette année, on laisse Cobourne sur la touche plus qu'à son tour.

C'est certain qu'on a moins à s'inquiéter pour les semaines qui viennent : on ne rencontre pas de grande puissance avant le mois d'octobre, un doublé contre les Stampeders. Mais ils faudra bien polir le jeu au sol un moment donné, alors pourquoi attendre trop longtemps.

On joue à Toronto cette semaine. Ils ont une fiche de 4-2, les Argonauts. Prenez à la légère, et ils peuvent vous assommer dans les câbles. Ils ont une bonne défensive, même si on les mystifiés il y a 2 semaines. Ça va être l'occasion de voir si notre ligne à l'attaque continue d'évoluer, ou si elle se cherche encore. Remarquez que si l'adversaire sait que le jeu sera dans les airs, c'est plus difficile pour la ligne à l'attaque car leurs opposants n'ont aucune hésitation.

Donc, si on veut gagner de plus belle façon, il faut faire plus de jeux au sol, plus de passes voilées (comme celles à Carter contre Toronto où il gagnait 7 à 9 verges à chaque fois, jeu totalement oublié contre Saskatchewan), et des relais ("shovel pass") sur le blitz.

Se pourrait-il que Trestman et ses accolytes font exprès pour taire une bonne partie de leur livre de jeux pour les garder pour les éliminatoires? Je ne sais pas si c'est une pratique courante de faire ce genre de stratégie, mais le jeu des Alouettes est tellement erratique qu'on peut se poser la question.

Se pourrait-il que Trestman et ses accolytes font exprès pour taire une bonne partie de leur livre de jeux pour les garder pour les éliminatoires? Je ne sais pas si c'est une pratique courante de faire ce genre de stratégie, mais le jeu des Alouettes est tellement erratique qu'on peut se poser la question.
What we have here is a genuine mystery. I seriously doubt the Alouettes would employ a strategy that is so blinkered and lop-sided that 1) By the nature of it's predictability, permits defenses fore-knowledge of what we are about to do and 2) In so doing we put our most important asset (Calvillo) at ever increasing risk of injury.

On the other hand, the last Toronto game was definite proof that the Alouettes are aware of the imbalance, and are fully able to redress it.

Therefore, as the season progresses and the issue remains, the question becomes: Who's responsible for the lack of implementation of a very obvious solution? For anyone who's thinking "the Als are 5-1, what exactly do they need to change?" Take another look at the second half of the Riders game and tell me there's no problem.

So is it the guys on the sidelines calling the plays, or the guy on the field, putting those calls into action?
Could be they're being cagey, seeing how far they can go before being forced to implement the running attack. Somehow that kind of disrespect for the opposition doesn't sound like Mark Trestman.
I know I'm not the only one, but I'm increasingly mystified by the whole thing. It seems foolish to the point of stupidity.

Maybe we Alouettes fans are a bit spoiled, but stupid just isn't part of our playbook.

At the beginnng of the Sask game it was clear Trestman's game is the passing game - it worked , two long passes and the Als were ahead 10-0. This focus, however, regressed by the 3rd quarter which Sask owned. It appears to me that the Als do live by the pass but, they cannot sustain this offence through 4 quarters of football- last year's Grey Cup is a good example when the team's offense came alive only in the final quarter. Had it not been for the Sasks earlier in the game taking a field goal instead of going for the TD or, their 13th man they would have won the cup. This year we again see that the Als cannot sustain 4 quarters of quality offense. When we view the Regina team, however, we are looking at a team which has a great passing game but their running game is also very good- unlike the Als they have a running game which is utilized. In the latest three games between these great teams, Sask was very effective with the run and, the Als defenders had to a two demensional team to play against. This causes more difficulty for the defenders which have to guess, each play, what will be the dimension they will face.

Je suis bien d'accord qu'il serait stupide de la part des Alouettes de volontairement utiliser un nombre restreint de jeux, ce qui exposerait Calvillo davantage. Mais quelle différence y a-t-il entre ce questionnement sur ce qui serait une absurdité et la facilité avec laquelle toutes les équipes se rendent à Calvillo? Si ce n'est pas cette absurdité, c'est de l'incompétence soit dans l'exécution, soit dans la stratégie.

Ce n'est pas tant la fiche de 5-1 qui inquiète (ce serait idiot de s'inquiéter d'une telle fiche) mais la façon dont les Alouettes ne gagnent pas : en jouant pendant 57 minutes plus 3.

La partie contre les Roughriders semble plus montrer que les problèmes de la ligne d'attaque ne sont pas réglés, et que la partie contre Toronto était un heureux accident de parcours.

Je ne crois pas que les fans des Alouettes soient trop gâtés : ceux qui commentent cette situation la regardent à la lueur du talent qu'on connaît à tous leurs éléments, et savent que cette équipe ne joue pas à la hauteur de ce qu'elle est capable de donner. Cela n'emporte pas pour autant que leur appui à l'équipe a diminué, mais exprime simplement le regard lucide qu'ils portent au rendement de leur équipe.

La grosse consolation, c'est qu'ils gagnent!

Good point. By neglecting the run and not having a mobile QB, the opposing defense is constantly pinning their ears back waiting to take their shot.

I think that those 2 quick plays were the worst thing that could have happened to the Als. It seemed that for the rest of the night, the offense was trying to force the issue and AC ended up holding onto the ball longer than he should have (waiting for something to open up down field).

La grosse consolation, c'est qu'ils gagnent!
Correction...grosse consolation, c'est que jusqu'ici ils ONT gagnés.

Make no mistake! Every team in the CFL is looking
at the Als and discussing their weaknesses.
As we're aware of their lack of a running attack,
they are dreaming up ways to exploit that very thing.

I'm not sure if the Als still "lead" in sacks allowed
and are near last in red-zone efficiency, but there's
no question that we've been lucky to have played some
teams struggling to adjust and gel, and caught a serious
break with Darian Durant's illness.

It may seem absurd. But i hope the Als get whooped
by the Argos this Saturday. But bad.
All in all it could be the best thing
that could happen this team.

I think the media played the Durant 'illness' a little too much. He seemed fine out there to me.

I find it funny how even though the Als are 5 - 1, so many look at the record and say how lucky they've been. Sure, I'll be the first to admit that they haven't crushed everyone or played perfect football but they have found ways to win and that's what good teams do. In the last game, the offense was downright AWFUL in the second half but the defense, for their part, gave up almost nothing to one of the top attacks in the league during that time.

I think Duane Forde said it best when he said "You pretty much have to play perfect football to beat Montreal". So other teams need to be 'perfect' to beat us but from what I have seen, we don't have to be perfect to win. :wink:

I quite agree with Duane Ford's remark, but for how long can the Als count on this? It is true that good teams fidn ways to win as so far this has been the case for the Als.

At some point, however, the Als need to mix it up on offence and have better rush schemes on D. We have been rather spoiled over the last few seasons with their utter domination from start to finish where the game was never in doubt. Obviously, we can't count on that each season. The other teams are also professional and driven by the will to win. As GC champs, every team in the league is gunning for them and will eventually be able to figure things out. The fact that they have won a few "nailbiters" may just give the opposition the idea that the Als can be beat. In close games, one fumble, INT, missed tackle, missed blocking assignment...etc. will mean the difference between a W or a L. Nailbiters are very exciting to watch, but give coaches (and fans!) heart failure!

There is no doubt that the Als have excellent personnel and are fairly strong in most respects. I would like to see more innovation on O to beat the pass rush, more innovative running plays, sweeps, HB draws, end-arounds, good execution on shorte routes, and good clock management.

I quite agree with Duane Ford's remark, but for how long can the Als count on this? It is true that good teams find ways to win and so far this has been the case for the Als.

At some point, however, the Als need to mix it up on offence and have better rush schemes on D. We have been rather spoiled over the last few seasons with their utter domination from start to finish where the game was never in doubt. Obviously, we can't count on that each season. The other teams are also professional and driven by the will to win. As GC champs, every team in the league is gunning for them and will eventually be able to figure things out. The fact that they have won a few "nailbiters" may just give the opposition the idea that the Als can be beat. In close games, one fumble, INT, missed tackle, missed blocking assignment...etc. will mean the difference between a W or a L. Nailbiters are very exciting to watch, but give coaches (and fans!) heart failure.

There is no doubt that the Als have excellent personnel and are fairly strong in most respects. I would like to see more innovation on O to beat the pass rush, more innovative running plays, sweeps, HB draws, end-arounds, good execution on shorter routes, and good clock management.