Si Durant n’était pas en état de jouer, il n’aurait pas joué. Les fans des Roughriders sont assez bons pour se trouver des excuses pour ne pas accepter que leur équipe s’est faite battre. La plupart du temps, ce sont les arbitres qui ont manqué une punition “critique”, ou qui n’ont pas signalé une punition “critique”, ça peut être à cause du vent, de l’inclinaison du soleil au deuxième quart, sinon il manquait un substitut sur les lignes de côté, ou Durant est malade, ou la belle-mère de sa coiffeuse. Et les media reprennent ces excuses sans se poser la question si la cause de la défaite n’était pas ailleurs.
L’offensive n’était pas horrible seulement dans la deuxième demie de la dernière partie : elle l’a été durant la moitié de la 2ième partie, toute la 3ième partie et la moitié de la 4ième partie. Ça fait beaucoup de demies où notre attaque ne fonctionne pas comme elle le devrait. L’attaque a vraiment gagné deux parties. Les autres l’ont été par la défensive, erratique ou pas.
Si c’est vrai que les victoires des Alouettes semblent être des insultes aux autres équipes (ils jouent mal mais gagnent quand même, ce qui veut dire que leurs adversaires sont pires), je crois que celles-ci vont plutôt considérer qu’elles ont montré qu’elles peuvent battre les Alouettes et en seront plus motivées. Le prochain vrai test sera Calgary au mois d’octobre. On saura là ce que les Alouettes valent vraiment, à un mois des éliminatoires.
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.
The Als seem content to point to their record and ignore their shortcomings. Still…the one-dimensional offensive rut the Alouettes have been in doesn’t seem to want to change. As the rest of the league struggles to adjust and shore up some of their weaknesses, the Als snigger with arrogance and "stay the course".
Is it karma for adopting a mantra from a dubious source…Trestman apparently didn’t want to reveal the “Bush-ism” to TSN at the start of the season.
I call it the “Emperors New Offense? and I’m not looking forward to that moment of truth…I won’t be laughing.
Watching the Ticats beat the Bombers last night, and continuing to watch the progression of that Argos team is bound to make one a little nervous.
If we were facing Kevin Glenn tonight instead of Cleo Lemon, I’d be doubtful. But the Argos continue to lean HEAVILY on the run…and our run defense has been solid for most of the season.
Might be the best thing if Toronto smacks the Alouettes down a bit tonight. This long season is only 1/3 done, and adjustments NEED to be made. Could be Cleo Lemon and the Argos will be kind enough to make that important point for some of the rest of us.
Argos by 10 points…if we’re “lucky”.
I was interested on the post recently re the West Coast Offense. This for sure is Trestman's offense. The notion that it is easier to pick up a first down by the short pass and, not the run, is an intertesting concept. Treasman's coaching in two years has brought us two grey cup games and one winner. At present we are in first place and, anyone objective would have to admit that this offense has brought us success. Its hard to argue with succes!!!
Treasman's coaching in two years has brought us two grey cup games and one winner. At present we are in first place and, anyone objective would have to admit that this offense has brought us success. Its hard to argue with succes!!!
For years folks have been wondering why it's so hard to repeat as Champs.
I guess this is as good a reason as any.
“Success goes to your head”
It’s hard to argue with success.
But somebody’s got to try.
To me, the theory that it's easier to pick up 5 yards in the air than on the ground is a flawed way to 'prove' the superiority of an offensive system, because if you do not run the ball, you effectively allow the defensive line to pass-rush without having to worry about a running play originating from inside the pocket. The other thing is that even the shortest pass involves more risk than a handoff or pitch to a running back, particularly in a timing offense like ours where the receiver is supposed to be in a specific spot at a specific time to receive a ball that AC has thrown to a place, not a person. Good press coverage can wreak havoc on a timing offense. When that happens, what do you do? Do you stick with what's not working, because your system is God? Or do you demonstrate the flexibility and adaptability that any good coach needs to be a champion?
With all the benefits of our vaunted West Coast offense, we would not be champions today if we had ignored Avon Cobourne during the 2009 Grey Cup game.
Je crois qu’on a eu un bon exemple de ce que donne une offensive sans jeu au sol.
Nous avons une équipe avec beaucoup de talent et de profondeur. Pourquoi négliger les atouts que nous avons en Cobourne, Carter, Diedrick et Whitaker? Au fait, pourquoi ne nous servons-nous plus du tout de Carter sauf pour bloquer?
Si on veut avoir du succès, il faut mieux équilibrer l’attaque. Vercheval le dit, Climie le dit, en fait, tout le monde le dit, mais Trestman et Milanovitch sont incapables de le remarquer.
Parfois, contre les Lions, on aurait pu courir sur les 2ième et long. On l’a pas fait. Whitaker l’avait fait contre les Blue Bombers, et il avait eu des résultats. Cobourne n’as pas pu trouver les trous, lui. Pas assez de pratique, on dirait.
Le football se joue les deux pieds sur terre, sauf si on s’appelle Ben Cahoon. Et il n’y en a qu’un seul.
What I find interesting is that earlyer in the season he claimed the reason the Als were not running the ball was because Anthony was opting to pass on 12 or so of the option plays called. What I would like to know is why they didn't run the ball with a rookie QB in huddle ? Or is it that Trestman does not trust a component of his offense ? Wants to keep options for post season ?
I don't know but there is a reason why coach is doing what he's doing.
I've given up expecting these coaches to run the ball. We have last year's Grey Cup MVP on our roster, as well as a very capable backup in Whitaker, and yet here we are, halfway through the season, with the same inability to run the ball as we faced at the beginning of the year. I'm giving up. If Trestman and Milanovich can't see that Cobourne is integral to both our offensive production and quarterback health, then they never will, and we'll just have to resign ourselves to watching this tired West Coast offense sputter along while our quarterbacks take turns getting injured.
I guess I should have seen the signs after the first Argo game when, after a performance for the ages by Cobourne, they went right back to what wasn't working the following week.
This offseason should be a very interesting one for our Als. Calvillo and Cahoon will have decisions to make (it's my belief that Ben will retire, regardless of what Anthony chooses) and we have a bunch of players either about to become free agents (Duval, Brown, Cox, Green, Guzman, Leak, Stewart) or entering their option years (Boulay, Bourke, Bratton, Brodeur-Jourdain, Estelle, Flory, Lambert, McElveen, Proulx).
I myself am not expecting anything great from this team this season. I'll be surprised if we win the division, shocked if we make it to the Grey Cup final. What direction will Popp and Trestman choose to go in this offseason? Will they overhaul the team and modify their offensive and defensive philosophies? Or will they stay the course and just try to fill holes at certain positions that need fixing (center, placekicker, defensive halfback, defensive tackle)?
Hopefully I understood the point and question correctly, but Calvillo’s (or Leak’s) decision on the zone-read option to either give the ball to Cobourne or to keep it depends on the reaction of the unblocked backside defensive end.
If this defensive end goes after Cobourne, Calvillo keeps the ball.
If the defensive end anticipates the keep from Calvillo, then Calvillo must give to Cobourne.
Here’s a variation when you don’t have an athletic QB…were if the QB keeps the ball, he will look for the pass on the backside…the QB run is the last resort. Look for the subititle called ‘quadruple it’… there’s actually a video of Henry Burris running a quadruple option off of the zone-read http://smartfootball.com/run-game/the-zone-read-gun-triple-option-and-the-quadruple-option
Now, if you are in the shoes of the unblocked backside defensive end and you see the zone read develop in front of you…most defensive end would consider Cobourne being the bigger threat, so more often than not Calvillo will end up keeping the ball off of the zone read.
Bon. Ce que ça veut dire, c'est que les variations du zone-read ne suffisent pas parce qu'en ne couvrant que Cobourne, il n'y a plus de menace. Donc, il faut aussi attaquer les flancs au sol.
Exactly. If all we’re doing is the zone read, it’s a waste of Cobourne, as Calvillo is not a sufficient running threat to make defensive ends respect his scrambling ability on the play.
We need more dedicated and creative running plays. Delay draws, sweeps, fullback dives, and counters. We need to run both between and outside the tackles.
