Where did the D go?

I agree with depop here. Do you really expect your defense to hold an offense like Calgary's to 0 points in 30 minutes of football? That's not realistic. The first half was awful, and worthy of censure, but the second half was not, from a defensive standpoint, at least in my humble opinion.

I appreciate both your viewpoints but I also disagree with you both. That is not to saay I don’t respect your opinions or anyone else’s in this forum. However I do not tell another poster that their viewpoint is ridiculous and use expletives to accentuate my disregard for that poster’s opinion. Just because Mr. Depop played football at some point in his life does not give him the right to trot himself out as the sole authority on all matters. I have always appreciated your viewpoints d&p and the dignified manner you handle yourself on these forums. The same cannot be said for your new found best friend.

You don’t have to use the B word to “take shots” at someone (not that that word was being used in that manner at all), much as you just attempted to above. If you are not going to disagree with people’s views at times, then what is the point of posting on here. IMO id is ridiculous to fault a D for allowing 7 points in a half. You seem to have pretty good views, which is why I am so shocked that you think giving up 7 points in a half is so horrid. You just disagreed with me, and I you…it works both ways…get over it. And no, I do not think that my 30 years of ball experience mean I am an authority, but it does mean I do have some insight many do not, and in all the games I have ever played in I would be shocked if more than 10% of the games I have been in had a team shut out by a D in a half (outside of high-school ball anyways), and less that that when it is a good offense. Again, not saying the Riders D played good, they clearly didn’t, I am fully on board with you, but they played fairly well in the second half.

Okay - let's bury the hatchet. I expect people to disagree with me - this forum would be rather boring if everybody held the same opinion. I'm sticking to my guns on this issue. In my opinion there is much more to the effectiveness of a defense than how many points they allow the opposition to put on the score board. I agree they did play better than the 1st half but that wouldn't take much. I have held the same position of RH defensive strategy from day one - it doesn't get the job done when it is most needed. Calgary did the same thing to us in the first game - marched the ball down the field - they didn't score but we got the ball back with 20 or so seconds on the clock. So we can disagree on this issue and I'm good with that. I think my outlook is valid as is yours but your arguments do not sway me at this time.

I don’t want to speak for depop. Speaking only for myself, I can say that agreeing to disagree is a right we should all have here, regardless of what opinions we hold. I continue to believe that allowing seven points in 30 minutes of football is not indicative of a poor performance by any CFL defense. You disagree. We’ll leave it at that. :thup:

Oh, I agree with you. The strategy pales in comparison to that of last year on D. Calgary marched the ball far too easily, and it looked like a very similar game plan to the previous meeting. I think that Marshall summed it up well in his post game...basically said the D was lousy and a few guys didn't play well. Talked about the horrid first half tackling. The tackling drove me nuts last year, as it does this year. I thought it was improving, but definitely not this game.

While the secondary was swiss cheese in the 1st half, they looked better in the second, and I attribute that to the D-line getting a little more penetration...not a pile, but enough. I really do hope that they end up with a solid DE. I am not sure that is Hawkins, but there is cap room to make a play on someone (Chick if he is available, or someone else). I think that the secondary would look a pile better if the QB did not have time to look at each receiver.

I know that the club was saying the other day that they agreed that a solid DE would be a bonus, but that they were sitting in 4th in sack, so it was not that bad...well, it is. Sacks are great, but they are not the be all end all. They are often a good indication of how the line is doing, but not when those sacks are on basically only blitz. Having a LB making sacks on a blitz is great, but what about the rest of the time, when the pocket never gets pushed.

To answer the thread question. . .

The Riders' defence may have disappeared into the same black hole that swallowed up both Toronto's and Hamilton's defences tonight.

Its fine to be optomistic and all but I hardly believe when Hawkins comes back he will turn the Defense around, he won't be 100% and some of his injury will still be their and he's probably not in any shape physically to come back to the form he was, this problem on defense goes alot deeper than one guy on the 9 game, this involves problems with schemes and the personel we have for the attemped schemes

While RH must have made some adjustments at the half, I don’t think Calgary was going all out either. Kinda like how Dimwiddie looked good against a D that was playing prevent D. Funny but that is exactly what Richie played in the first half. It doesn’t work.