What is wrong with the Elks?!

BUT… first game for the qb and we did move the ball all night. Winnipeg only had one sack tonight too. We can clean up most of the turnovers easily. I’m sure Cornelius can clean up the INT’s. Those wide outs mess with a lot of QB’s new to the CFL.

Wow that’s exceptional confidence. I only saw a quarter of play the fourth quarter (damn work schedule lately, which mercifully improves this week), and well that was enough. He’s all arm low accuracy and bad decisions.

I do not see that all being cleaned up in a few games.

The part you didn't see was much better. He has a cannon for an arm. We did move the ball all night. Better yet he has IT. They showed him talking to receivers on the bench - I cant even remember shot of the bench so far this year because its been dead.

Now we have a bye week for the receivers to re-calibrate to how fast he throws the ball, then Ottawa. We will be better by the time we get back to Winnipeg.

I'm not sure adding these players is going to help anything this season.

I figure they are just trying them out to plan for next year already.

And then we have to wonder again if there's still a league, but I figure they'll figure it out now with more time and at least some season played in 2021.

I also notice Harris has recovered from his neck problem. I say use both him and Cornelius. Give Cornelius a package and let him play like we used to when Jones was here.
It disrupts the defence for a few plays when you change skill sets. Most defences don't have time to prepare and practice for two quarterbacks.

1 Like

This was a better take than your later one in the Harris thread touting that somehow as if Cornelius has been annointed saviour based on performance of 3/4 of one game and your implication that Harris was not going to recover as quickly but for that lacklustre and losing performance of this sudden saviour Cornelius.

I don’t get this new “ditch Harris” movement afoot from fans of the team given the predicament the league is in, somewhat self-inflicted as well this season, for sake of a shortage of decent quarterbacks even at starter for all teams.

Could not agree more Paolo. This is a season like never before, we're all looking for the next Ricky Ray but don't be so fickle that you'd toss out a proven starter for simply being human and getting hurt . Take er down a notch eh

2 Likes

I will stand by my previous comments. For a new QB, limited practice, no live snaps under centre, new league, new rules, playing arguably one of the best defences in the league. I thought he did pretty well. My expectation was that we were not likely to beat Winnipeg no matter who played but to hang within 8 points until the last two minutes was pretty decent.

I have nothing against Harris. He is a very good quarterback. Not that we should throw him on the scrap heap but a little competition wouldn’t be a bad thing would it?

1 Like

Our Elks are poop. Now we groom whom we can for next season and just blow it up.

/Hands over the microphone

That's some bold strategy too on the part of the coaching staff to give up 3 safeties in one game.

Now I can understand the tactical one at any given time, but wow, at some point I think you should have some faith in your special teams or they are not the problem.

Flush this coaching stuff too already then.

All three times they were punting inside their 5 yard line. You keep a chart of decisions based on your personnel and the situation and the probabilities. If you’re not at the point where you’re playing 3-down football (which they weren’t at 14-3 in the 3rd quarter) why would you suddenly think that your chart is wrong? If you’re changing your mind just because you’re frustrated, that’s usually a bad move. Not good to second guess yourself.

1 Like

I’d really like to see some analysis of the success rate of giving up a safety. In my mind a TD is often the result after a team giving up a safety. But memory is is often wrong.
Is it the only sport that willingly gives up points and possession?

1 Like

Ah therein lies a key difference in your analysis and mine. It’s the 3rd quarter, and sure no lead is safe and all that, but you are behind.

Lest there was a vicious headwind blowing, at such point I don’t agree with you given they had given up already two of them and are not dominating the game offensively.

Even with a headwind, you are still kicking into it from the 25. Maybe you gain 10 yards out of it yet gave up 2 points already?

The defence was holding up to some degree, so you go with that again and live for another day when you are behind.

Punting from your 5 you are handing the opposition field goal range. Even if the punter launches a 50 yarder it is fielded at the 55. A 10 yard return is field goal range. Kicking off from the 25 the opposition would be lucky to scrimmage from their 40, a good 2 or 3 first downs from FG range. I don’t know what the wind was like last nite but 9 coaches out of 10 would concede that safety every time and the 10th coach would very likely lose.

There were a lot of things that didn’t go well for the Elks last nite. Giving up the safeties was not the problem nor the reason that they lost. It was a product of the problems (unable to move the ball out of the hole) sure but not the problem itself.

If you want to criticize Elizondo there are many other things to discuss that are far more pertinent than his safety chart. Try his ‘culture’ roster moves, or his sideline demeanor, or his woeful special teams (even though their returns and coverage might have been the best it has been all year there was still that blocked punt!) or just his inability to get results from some pretty good talent.

1 Like

So much here. You assume they make the field goal number one. Just no.

Keep going from that false premise plus you ignore the team is behind in the second half not the first half when otherwise I probably agree with you.

You have to take more risks when you are behind including smaller ones like this.

You can keep the rest of your analysis, for the strategy obviously did not work out anyway after giving up two safeties already.

No so-called chart is sacred either.

You can’t assume that they won’t make the FG. That is absolute pure folly. A great strategy yes, “we’ll hand them FG range and pray that they’ll miss”. That’s the exact opposite of putting your players in a position to succeed - or otherwise known as - good coaching.

I won’t argue the rest of it with you. You’re not interested.

1 Like

I am going to agree with you at least that YOUR team should concede more safeties then. There is no limit.

Once two have been conceded in the first half and you are still behind with only 3 points scored, well that’s enough for my team now and for this coach and GM who both need to hit the road and never come back.

At least we are still in the top 10

Despite underperforming beyond my wildest expectation the Elks can still qualify for playoffs assuming they start winning (and 2 losses to the Redblacks is just wow…)

BC have hardly been world beaters and Calgary has also underperformed. Calgary has been the “better” AB team (not saying much) but both teams are only 2 games up on Edmonton.

Even a cross over is not out of the question (despite my predictions preseason of 3 East teams making it) as they have 2 games against East teams pending. But they MUST beat BC in Week 16.

Edmonton needs to score more. They do have a game in hand but 143 points in 8 games is just not enough. Esp the games against Ottawa where they just failed time and time again to put something on score board.

BC could be tied for second by Sunday morning. How is that under performing?

Nope, no way. Did you see Elizondo’s post game last week? The realization that he is in over his head is finally coming to him.

Sunderland say “he hasn’t lost the room” Bull :poop: They have both lost the room. That and if you though Commonwealth looked empty before - wait until Friday.

1 Like