Do we change our play calling

[BigBlue]

What a delightful game ... amazing defense and lights out offense in the first quarter (again with a similar offensive output to last week's Q1).

So we got it done.

Now maybe defenses "adjust" and eventually take away our initial game plan.

My question, however, is whether Ds really do shut us down later, OR. OR, OR ... do we quit adjusting and go with what is "prudent" (read that as conservative/safe) instead of shifting to take advantage of how the adjusting D is cheating up, leaving us different types of opportunities. In other words do we voluntarily shut ourselves down?

I really don't know, but ...

When we lost our starting tackle, why do we start trying to establish a running game, especially when that had not been working  earlier in the game? That's not "adjusting" to what the D gives. That, as it turns out, is "two and out" territory.

Matt Dunigan was pleading with the Blue to go for the throat, to put the game away. Instead we turtled and had little O in the 2nd half. As good as our D was, we ended up giving up another 300+ yards passing.  Match our play calling to our strengths and the defense's cheats... that's what I want to see.

Now back to celebrating and doing cartwheels....

[wbbfan]

The 2nd half was a great struggle for our offense. Its the same stuff weve seen all year long. Only the first half was much more productive. But even then we werent aggressive. We had amazing field position in the first half.

I think we do need to change some of out play calling and philosophy to get the most out of our offense. I dont think there is any chance we will though. Plop has run the same offense every year here in every role. We brought him in knowing what he ran and let him run that same offense. 

[Taynted_Fayth]

at the game I said to my son and my dad, while I was overly pumped by the 1st half dominance, it would be more telling in the 2nd half as hamilton would make adjustments , something they couldnt seem to do in the first 2 quarters.  Seemed to me with a 34 point cushion, the bombers were in No turn overs, run out the clock mode.  While I agree with Dunigan to an extent, we were in unfamiliar territory as of late where we had the game firmly in hand early. The 2nd half wasnt as exciting as the first but we only gave up 11 points,  which is pretty good for 2 quarters playing bend but dont break style ball.  great game

Edited August 4, 2016 by Taynted_Fayth

[JuranBoldenRules]

Harris is really struggling.  He's trying to do too much, maybe trying to be the saviour.  The OL was really bad too run blocking, but especially after the shift when Hardrick went out.  As you saw, running stretch plays when your interior guys aren't firing off the line leads to big losses.

[B-F-F-C]

The defence and ST's both played a full 60 minute game. But yes the offence struggled in the 2nd half. 

However, in sports this is a common scenario where a team explodes in the 1st half and then comes out flat in the 2nd half.  I think the plan for the offence was to protect the ball and ride out the game.   So the lack of offensive output was predictable but it still would have been nice to put up a few more points in the 2nd half.

[Doublezero]

16 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Harris is really struggling.  He's trying to do too much, maybe trying to be the saviour.  The OL was really bad too run blocking, but especially after the shift when Hardrick went out.  As you saw, running stretch plays when your interior guys aren't firing off the line leads to big losses.

With Hardrick out, the flaws in the run game were exposed. Plays taking too long to form, also Harris may not quite have the wheels he had a couple years ago. He's a spark though, and peeled off some nice single-handed gains. But ya, run blocking looked sloppy. I'm going to cut everyone slack due to the long delay in starting the game and lateness of the hour.

[bearpants]

6 hours ago, BigBlue said:

Matt Dunigan was pleading with the Blue to go for the throat, to put the game away. Instead we turtled and had little O in the 2nd half. As good as our D was, we ended up giving up another 300+ yards passing.  Match our play calling to our strengths and the defense's cheats... that's what I want to see.

what's the saying about stats being for losers... something like that... I'll gladly give up 300+ yards a game if we're only allowing 11 points...

but I do agree about the offense in the second half... would have been nice to see a kill shot and put the game away in the 3rd quarter... was kinda hoping to see Dom Davis in this game too... 

[Nash00]

1 hour ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Harris is really struggling.  He's trying to do too much, maybe trying to be the saviour.  The OL was really bad too run blocking, but especially after the shift when Hardrick went out.  As you saw, running stretch plays when your interior guys aren't firing off the line leads to big losses.

Bond is a big, big man and is great in the interior but he just doesn't have the speed to get out in front and block on those tosses/stretch runs. Mayo was a pedestrian on one play too where Lee came in and made the tackle on Harris, just gave him the ol' matador and let him through.

We saw last week when he wasn't being contacted behind the LOS he had success, this week was more of a struggle. He didn't really have any holes and had to try to make them himself.

The one thing I will say for Andrew Harris is the dude never gives up and his attitude from a fan's perspective is awesome to see. He is on the sidelines firing guys up and you can see his intensity on every play. For me, the play where Laurent had him dead to rights in the backfield and Harris just threw him off and ended up getting 8-9 yards was just an all out effort play. We haven't seen that much around these parts lately.

[pigseye]

Harris was dancing too much last night, the holes were there for 4 to 5 yard gains and you won't get much more than that against the Ticat front seven.

Edited August 4, 2016 by pigseye
Added to

[White Out]

I don't know why anyone is surprised our 2nd half was slow. We had an enormous lead and got comfortable.

[BomberBall]

I think a few screens to Harris would have helped out a lot, in the 2nd half, last night, but for some reason, Plop doesn't seem to want to call any.

[Dragon37]

7 hours ago, BigBlue said:

What a delightful game ... amazing defense and lights out offense in the first quarter (again with a similar offensive output to last week's Q1).

So we got it done.

Now maybe defenses "adjust" and eventually take away our initial game plan.

My question, however, is whether Ds really do shut us down later, OR. OR, OR ... do we quit adjusting and go with what is "prudent" (read that as conservative/safe) instead of shifting to take advantage of how the adjusting D is cheating up, leaving us different types of opportunities. In other words do we voluntarily shut ourselves down?

I really don't know, but ...

When we lost our starting tackle, why do we start trying to establish a running game, especially when that had not been working  earlier in the game? That's not "adjusting" to what the D gives. That, as it turns out, is "two and out" territory.

Matt Dunigan was pleading with the Blue to go for the throat, to put the game away. Instead we turtled and had little O in the 2nd half. As good as our D was, we ended up giving up another 300+ yards passing.  Match our play calling to our strengths and the defense's cheats... that's what I want to see.

Now back to celebrating and doing cartwheels....

I honestly wasn't too concerned about the offensive production in the second half. They could have switched things up a bit but for what little production there was they still managed to burn a fair amount of time when needed. Let's face it it was 34-0 and while "being more aggressive" would have been cool it also put players at risk for more injuries and turning the ball over. Winnipeg is also not the first to employ such an approach with a massive lead coming out of half time.

The onus was on Hammy to make the adjustments and while the D stepped up and did so the offense and STs  still pretty much crapped the bed. Yeah Masoli logged some good stats, so did Willy, but the end result was that they only got close enough to score twice the rest of the time they coughed the ball up.

Our D gave up a lot of yards in the second half, sure, but it isn't like they ran roughshod over us. They got the stop or turnover when they really needed it. 3 picks and one fumble tells me that our D wasn't in any real danger.

[pigseye]

I thought they did a pretty good job of running the clock in the second half, the D was playing so well it wasn't a concern. I can't remember the last time I left so relaxed with them holding a lead?

[Nash00]

4 minutes ago, Dragon37 said:

I honestly wasn't too concerned about the offensive production in the second half. They could have switched things up a bit but for what little production there was they still managed to burn a fair amount of time when needed. Let's face it it was 34-0 and while "being more aggressive" would have been cool it also put players at risk for more injuries and turning the ball over. Winnipeg is also not the first to employ such an approach with a massive lead coming out of half time.

The onus was on Hammy to make the adjustments and while the D stepped up and did so the offense and STs  still pretty much crapped the bed. Yeah Masoli logged some good stats, so did Willy, but the end result was that they only got close enough to score twice the rest of the time they coughed the ball up.

Our D gave up a lot of yards in the second half, sure, but it isn't like they ran roughshod over us. They got the stop or turnover when they really needed it. 3 picks and one fumble tells me that our D wasn't in any real danger.

This is what I was thinking last night. Give him the yards at that juncture, don't get beat over the top for a quick score and make him eat up the clock by dumping it off underneath. Exactly the playbook that Calgary has employed on us twice this year.

Richie Hall's D has been notoriously cushioned off the LOS, and that's without a 34 point lead.

[Blueandgold]

We were up 34-0. Of course our guys were more relaxed and we changed our play calling. It's just human nature, I don't know how you can expect anyone to keep up the same intensity as when its a close game. I'm aware that this is foreign territory to us, but we'll get used to it.

[Double Dare]

The only play I want to see changed (and never see again) is the delayed handoff on second and long. Brutal and classic Lapo!

[Brandon]

But they did bomb the ball in the 2nd half... a few key drops , a few bad penalties and a bad run by Harris killed most of our drives.

[Goalie]

1 minute ago, Brandon said:

But they did bomb the ball in the 2nd half... a few key drops , a few bad penalties and a bad run by Harris killed most of our drives.

Yeah but that doesn't fit the paul lapolice is a fool narrative here. You are living in a world of reality while lots of people are living in a world where they for some reason have a hard time blaming a qb or players who aren't executing. 

[bearpants]

10 minutes ago, Brandon said:

But they did bomb the ball in the 2nd half... a few key drops , a few bad penalties and a bad run by Harris killed most of our drives.

the penalties in the second half were getting frustrating... I think we had 4 major fouls in the half... that is inexcusable under any circumstances...

[Nash00]

5 minutes ago, bearpants said:

the penalties in the second half were getting frustrating... I think we had 4 major fouls in the half... that is inexcusable under any circumstances...

That is probably the most frustrating aspect of the 2nd half. The major fouls are all things that can be controlled and it was a lack of discipline across the board. Bryant's penalty took us from 2nd and medium to 2nd and long and if it wasn't for Maher not knowing how to loft a kickoff the Westerman penalty could have had larger implications. Those are easy things to clean up and they need to be. We won't always have a 26 point cushion.

[wbbfan]

6 hours ago, bearpants said:

what's the saying about stats being for losers... something like that... I'll gladly give up 300+ yards a game if we're only allowing 11 points...

but I do agree about the offense in the second half... would have been nice to see a kill shot and put the game away in the 3rd quarter... was kinda hoping to see Dom Davis in this game too... 

do you think we will win more then we lose giving up more passing yards then our combined offensive yards?

[Goalie]

I think if you get 6 turnovers from your D and special teams then yeah.... teams could throw for 500 yards a game and it probably doesn't matter. 

[Goalie]

I don't even think I could say that the O was very good, they were just efficient i think. At one point, bombers had 92 total yards on 0 and were winning 21-0. 

That's insane and unheard of really. That's ultra efficient. 

 

Sometimes, it's about being efficient, making the other team pay for their mistakes and last night in the first half, yeah they left some points on the board, like i said in the other thread, easily EASILY could have been 42-0 at half instead of 34-0 but...  they made the ticats pay for their mistakes. 

Football is all about field position really, Masoli threw for 300 plus yards? that's great but all it did was result in 11 points. Nichols threw for what? 250? yet the final score was 37-11. 

 

Funny game for sure. Sometimes, stats are for losers for sure. 

[Nash00]

11 minutes ago, Goalie said:

I don't even think I could say that the O was very good, they were just efficient i think. At one point, bombers had 92 total yards on 0 and were winning 21-0. 

That's insane and unheard of really. That's ultra efficient. 

 

Sometimes, it's about being efficient, making the other team pay for their mistakes and last night in the first half, yeah they left some points on the board, like i said in the other thread, easily EASILY could have been 42-0 at half instead of 34-0 but...  they made the ticats pay for their mistakes. 

Football is all about field position really, Masoli threw for 300 plus yards? that's great but all it did was result in 11 points. Nichols threw for what? 250? yet the final score was 37-11. 

 

Funny game for sure. Sometimes, stats are for losers for sure. 

Willy's gaudy numbers in garbage time vs Calgary back this up. You look at the numbers and they look great, unless you watched the game and realized that there was never a threat.

[Jpan85]

38 minutes ago, Goalie said:

I don't even think I could say that the O was very good, they were just efficient i think. At one point, bombers had 92 total yards on 0 and were winning 21-0. 

That's insane and unheard of really. That's ultra efficient. 

 

Sometimes, it's about being efficient, making the other team pay for their mistakes and last night in the first half, yeah they left some points on the board, like i said in the other thread, easily EASILY could have been 42-0 at half instead of 34-0 but...  they made the ticats pay for their mistakes. 

Football is all about field position really, Masoli threw for 300 plus yards? that's great but all it did was result in 11 points. Nichols threw for what? 250? yet the final score was 37-11. 

 

Funny game for sure. Sometimes, stats are for losers for sure. 

330 yards but had a 58 quarterback efficiency rate