GDT: EDMONTON @ WINNIPEG

[17to85]

15 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

 I think you are putting too much emphasis on the fact its a "trick" play.. the percentages of it working or not are probably similar to any passing play, really..  it had one extra step in it from the standard passing play. .

yeah let someone who isn't paid to throw the ball throw the ball, that's all, just a minor difference. 

Nichols was killing it that game, Harris and Flanders were killing it, why even consider letting a receiver throw the ball in that situation? Edmonton had all they could handle just trying to get the right number of people on the field let alone worrying about trickery. 

[SPuDS]

Just now, 17to85 said:

yeah let someone who isn't paid to throw the ball throw the ball, that's all, just a minor difference. 

Nichols was killing it that game, Harris and Flanders were killing it, why even consider letting a receiver throw the ball in that situation? Edmonton had all they could handle just trying to get the right number of people on the field let alone worrying about trickery. 

hes paid to do what the coaches and OC train him to do.. you  really don't think he had any practice with that play prior to game time?    its not like it hasn't worked in the past..

 

 

and like mentioned, you ALL crow about how conservative he is and how he never goes for it.. he does JUST THAT and guess what, people complain! lol. 

the ironing is so delicious.

[17to85]

1 minute ago, SPuDS said:

hes paid to do what the coaches and OC train him to do.. you  really don't think he had any practice with that play prior to game time?    its not like it hasn't worked in the past..

 

 

and like mentioned, you ALL crow about how conservative he is and how he never goes for it.. he does JUST THAT and guess what, people complain! lol. 

the ironing is so delicious.

we don't JUST complain about how conservative he is, we also complain that he is prone to trying to outsmart everyone too, as is the case here. 

Everyone on the roster can throw a football, but I'd rather let the quarterback who is putting together a fantastic season handle that job when you're already shoving the ball right down the opposing teams throats. There was no reason to try that play, none at all and it cost them a potential 4 points. 

Lapo is a smart man but he loses sight of the big picture quite often and has no sense of when to go for it and when not to. 

[SPuDS]

Just now, 17to85 said:

we don't JUST complain about how conservative he is, we also complain that he is prone to trying to outsmart everyone too, as is the case here. 

Everyone on the roster can throw a football, but I'd rather let the quarterback who is putting together a fantastic season handle that job when you're already shoving the ball right down the opposing teams throats. There was no reason to try that play, none at all and it cost them a potential 4 points. 

Lapo is a smart man but he loses sight of the big picture quite often and has no sense of when to go for it and when not to. 

*shrug*

 

agree to disagree on this I suppose as we ain't gonna convince each other.. otherwise.  I don't mind gambling in any spot on the field if the coach feels like they can exploit something.   O'shea has Lapo making some interesting (some say suspect) calls at times or is allowing him to make said calls.. I'm on board with it.  the risks outweigh the rewards imo,  its not like a turn over happened and we didn't get anything.   we scored 3, we won the game..

[Mike]

There's a pretty clear difference to me and it's not just a matter of saying "oh, a trick play see he's not conservative!"

I'm a big Lapo fan and I don't give him as much of a hard time as some others may want to, but that play call was horrendous for so many reasons.

We marched the ball down the field at will in front of the biggest crowd of the year, coming away with a touchdown on our first possession of the game would've put an exclamation mark on things for a crowd that was dying for an excuse to go nuts. Our yardage on each play of that drive (not counting the short yardage play) was 9, 8, 12, 9, 16, 6, 5 - we were first and goal on the 6 yard line. 7 plays consecutively with positive yardage, not a single incompletion and we land ourselves in striking distance. We were KILLING them and we just gave it all back in one stupid decision. 

Here's my issue with the call: even if you want to call it, call it on second down. Calling it on first down basically killing two downs at once because now we're in goal 14 yards out and Edmonton essentially just had to play the line of scrimmage. Call the smart play on first down and if THAT fails, get creative. Don't piss away an entire drive to give yourself a chubby because you made a fancy play call. It took the energy out of the building entirely and it was just unnecessary. There's a difference between being conservative and being smart and I'm sure even LaPolice would look back on that and know he made a bad call. It happens, every OC does it. That doesn't mean it WASN'T a bad call. 

[bearpants]

1 hour ago, mbrg said:

As far as I'm concerned, every time a pass is thrown both teams should have equal claim on the ball.  Yet on 50-50 jump balls the penalty always goes against the DB.  The CFL needs to stop bailing out QBs who make these irresponsible throws.

This... I specifically remember a play in pre-season against Edm... our DB had inside position on the WR (I don't recall who the players were but I assume neither made their respective teams) and the WR jumped over top of the DB made contact before the ball was there and knocked over the DB trying to make a play... I didn't care much b/c it was pre-season but I said to my friend "imagine if the roles were reversed and the DB jumped all over a WR like that"... guaranteed PI call... 

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Lapo is a smart man but he loses sight of the big picture quite often and has no sense of when to go for it and when not to. 

I have to agree with you completely in this particular incidence... Harris, Flanders and Nichols were completely dominating the Esks D on that drive... I believe, fully, we would've scored with a hand off or two... why not save the trickery when the O needs a spark...

[SPuDS]

24 minutes ago, Mike said:

There's a pretty clear difference to me and it's not just a matter of saying "oh, a trick play see he's not conservative!"

I'm a big Lapo fan and I don't give him as much of a hard time as some others may want to, but that play call was horrendous for so many reasons.

We marched the ball down the field at will in front of the biggest crowd of the year, coming away with a touchdown on our first possession of the game would've put an exclamation mark on things for a crowd that was dying for an excuse to go nuts. Our yardage on each play of that drive (not counting the short yardage play) was 9, 8, 12, 9, 16, 6, 5 - we were first and goal on the 6 yard line. 7 plays consecutively with positive yardage, not a single incompletion and we land ourselves in striking distance. We were KILLING them and we just gave it all back in one stupid decision. 

Here's my issue with the call: even if you want to call it, call it on second down. Calling it on first down basically killing two downs at once because now we're in goal 14 yards out and Edmonton essentially just had to play the line of scrimmage. Call the smart play on first down and if THAT fails, get creative. Don't piss away an entire drive to give yourself a chubby because you made a fancy play call. It took the energy out of the building entirely and it was just unnecessary. There's a difference between being conservative and being smart and I'm sure even LaPolice would look back on that and know he made a bad call. It happens, every OC does it. That doesn't mean it WASN'T a bad call. 

we all know the first drive is a "set" group of plays.  every game.  This play was game planned because the coaching staff saw something.  it didn't work.  I don't really understand the overwhelming ire that people are giving it.  We still scored 3.  it didn't end in a fumble. it didn't end in a turnover.  the drive killed tons of clock AND was positive at the end of it.  

 

who's to say driving it down their throats would have got us into the endzone?  hindsight is great and all but just like there is no promise that the trick play would have worked, there is no promise that hammering it down the middle would have either... frankly, the play failed because of pressure up the middle not giving Adams time to hit Nichols..  maybe that same pressure gets to Harris and hes pinned for a loss as well..

 

 

I mean its great that this kind of issue is what we are bickering about as opposed to seasons gone by where it was every decision made by the coaching staff lol.  I do see where you guys are coming from but I just dont agree that it was such a big deal.

[Guest J5V]

2 hours ago, mbrg said:

As far as I'm concerned, every time a pass is thrown both teams should have equal claim on the ball.  Yet on 50-50 jump balls the penalty always goes against the DB.  The CFL needs to stop bailing out QBs who make these irresponsible throws.

Agree and here's the part that drives me insane -- the RCV runs over a DB and the DB gets flagged, yet I've seen DBs run over our RCVs well before the ball gets there and we have to challenge because there is no flag. Drives me completely out of my mind how an official can make and not make both (non) calls. I mean, it's like we get abused at both ends of the spectrum here.

[Mike]

Never said it was a big deal. Just because I feel it's worth mentioning doesn't mean it's "such a big deal", just that it's worth discussing.

Nothing is to say any single play has a 100% chance of success at any given time, but the trick play was a bad call. Plain and simple.

You can point out all the positives you want (it wasn't a turnover, we still got points, we still won, we still have a great offense) and they're all correct. But that one stupid play call was like letting the air out of a balloon, it took the energy out of the crowd entirely and no offense to you Spuds, but if this was any team other than the Bombers, you'd be saying the exact same thing - I've seen you do it.

 

[SPuDS]

32 minutes ago, Mike said:

Never said it was a big deal. Just because I feel it's worth mentioning doesn't mean it's "such a big deal", just that it's worth discussing.

Nothing is to say any single play has a 100% chance of success at any given time, but the trick play was a bad call. Plain and simple.

You can point out all the positives you want (it wasn't a turnover, we still got points, we still won, we still have a great offense) and they're all correct. But that one stupid play call was like letting the air out of a balloon, it took the energy out of the crowd entirely and no offense to you Spuds, but if this was any team other than the Bombers, you'd be saying the exact same thing - I've seen you do it.

 

No, actually.. I wouldn't but thanks for putting words in my mouth.   I've always been a fan of a coach who gambles.   I've always commended guys willing to take a shot like that either on the offense or special teams.  

[Bigblue204]

53 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

. frankly, the play failed because of pressure up the middle not giving Adams time to hit Nichols..  maybe that same pressure gets to Harris and hes pinned for a loss as well..

 

first, I was honestly shocked they tried that play at that time. For sure thought it was going to be 2 hand offs to Harris. Considering the injuries on that D line I think it should have been harris all day. But anyway, the play failed on many fronts not just pressure up the middle. Even if Adams had all day, Nichols wasn't open. the HB stuck and picked up Nichols, probably because of good film work as they ran this play in basically the same situation late last year.  2nd it was a bad play call as the O needs confidence they can score in the red zone without the trickery. Sure there's nothing 100% on any play. I get that. But I'd be willing to bet, that Harris getting the ball in that situation has a higher %%% of scoring than any trick play they could have run.  3rd. the bombers Oline had basically done anything they wanted against that Dline during that drive. Give the hoggs a chance to bull rush their way into the endzone.

Not a big deal, but still a bad call.

[SPuDS]

Just now, Bigblue204 said:

first, I was honestly shocked they tried that play at that time. For sure thought it was going to be 2 hand offs to Harris. Considering the injuries on that D line I think it should have been harris all day. But anyway, the play failed on many fronts not just pressure up the middle. Even if Adams had all day, Nichols wasn't open. the HB stuck and picked up Nichols, probably because of good film work as they ran this play in basically the same situation late last year.  2nd it was a bad play call as the O needs confidence they can score in the red zone without the trickery. Sure there's nothing 100% on any play. I get that. But I'd be willing to bet, that Harris getting the ball in that situation has a higher %%% of scoring than any trick play they could have run.  3rd. the bombers Oline had basically done anything they wanted against that Dline during that drive. Give the hoggs a chance to bull rush their way into the endzone.

Not a big deal, but still a bad call.

Like I said earlier, gonna have to agree to disagree.. Nichol's did have position on the DB, DB was behind him at the goal line.  If adam's throws the pass, its possibly caught or gets a PI.  I'm more then willing to accept it didn't work as planned and it was a failure but I still don't see it as a bad call.  

Edited August 21, 2017 by SPuDS

[Bigblue204]

2 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

Like I said earlier, gonna have to agree to disagree.. Nichol's did have position on the DB, DB was behind him at the goal line.  If adam's throws the pass, its possibly caught or gets a PI.  I'm more then willing to accept it didn't work as planned but I still don't see it as a bad call.  

This is true, but I'm willing to bet that DB has a bit more speed/athletic ability to make a play on the ball than Nichols. Don't see Adams putting it on a line for Nichols....but yeah...all moot now.

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

Like I said earlier, gonna have to agree to disagree.. Nichol's did have position on the DB, DB was behind him at the goal line.  If adam's throws the pass, its possibly caught or gets a PI.  I'm more then willing to accept it didn't work as planned and it was a failure but I still don't see it as a bad call.  

Except the intent of the play is not to put Nichols in a one on one jump ball situation. Nichols can have as much position as he wants, he's not a receiver. 

The intent of the play is that the D loses track of Nichols and he's wide open in the end zone. The fact that the half picked up on it means the play was pretty much dead in the water, unless you suddenly think Adams and Nichols switched bodies and Nichols is a red zone threat and Adams can put touch on the ball like a QB. 

[SPuDS]

Just now, Bigblue204 said:

This is true, but I'm willing to bet that DB has a bit more speed/athletic ability to make a play on the ball than Nichols. Don't see Adams putting it on a line for Nichols....but yeah...all moot now.

true true.  I would imagine that even after the toss, it could have been knocked down pretty easily.. Nichol's isn't known for his receiver skills, lol

Edited August 21, 2017 by SPuDS

[17to85]

1 hour ago, SPuDS said:

*shrug*

 

agree to disagree on this I suppose as we ain't gonna convince each other.. otherwise.  I don't mind gambling in any spot on the field if the coach feels like they can exploit something.   O'shea has Lapo making some interesting (some say suspect) calls at times or is allowing him to make said calls.. I'm on board with it.  the risks outweigh the rewards imo,  its not like a turn over happened and we didn't get anything.   we scored 3, we won the game..

Disagree all you like, you're on the wrong side of the argument. Before the play was even finished I knew it was a bad call, even if it had been successful I still would have called it a bad call and said that it was a good thing it worked. 

There was absolutely no reason to try that play. You just marched the ball at will on the opening drive, you got a big crowd looking to go crazy, why make things more difficult on yourselves by calling a play like that? There were so many things that could go wrong trying that play and the simple stuff was shredding the Esks all the way down the field. 

Lapo tried to be the smartest man in the room and pissed away a chance to really smack the other team in the mouth. I mean yeah they won that game, but for all the yards they put up they didn't win by an awful wide margin. Part of making sure you don't let teams hang around is putting the dagger in when you have chances not trying to be cute and giving them a chance to escape. 

[Bigblue204]

1 minute ago, 17to85 said:

Part of making sure you don't let teams hang around is putting the dagger in when you have chances not trying to be cute and giving them a chance to escape. 

That's why despite all the winning, I don't think this team is playing it's best football yet (which I like). You have to put 7 on the board more consistently. The game should have been over by halftime. And it's mistakes like that, that turn 7's into 3's. Good news is, they haven't hit LD yet and there is plenty of time to get the wrinkles out and start playing the best they can!

[Mr Dee]

You guys can call it a bad play call if you want..you're entitled...because it didn't work.  I see it no different than a run up the middle that gets stuffed, or a long fade in the end zone that's too far, or for that matter, any play that didn't work. You're putting forward the belief that any other play call had a better chance of working. And that's a possibility, but not a guarantee. The very next play showed what could happen...a sack.

That play was specifically designed for that spot on the field, and it was called because the same play worked perfectly last year when it was tried. Was it still a bad call then?

To me, it was simply a call that didn't work, nothing more, nothing less.

[Super Duper Negatron]

20 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

You guys can call it a bad play call if you want..you're entitled...because it didn't work.  I see it no different than a run up the middle that gets stuffed, or a long fade in the end zone that's too far, or for that matter, any play that didn't work. You're putting forward the belief that any other play call had a better chance of working. And that's a possibility, but not a guarantee. The very next play showed what could happen...a sack.

That play was specifically designed for that spot on the field, and it was called because the same play worked perfectly last year when it was tried. Was it still a bad call then?

To me, it was simply a call that didn't work, nothing more, nothing less.

Any play where the QB plays QB and the receiver plays receiver automatically has a better chance of working. The trick play is the kind of thing you run where the offence has struggled and you magically find yourself in scoring range and in need of a momentum swing. When your starters are dominating the way they did on that drive, you keep riding them.

I almost hated the play where they kept Lefevour in after a 2nd (3rd?) and short even more. They have tried that a bunch of times this season and it has almost always been stopped for little or no gain, largely because the defense knows he isn't going to throw the ball. As soon as he stayed in I said to my wife, "Oh great, let's watch Lefevour run for 2 yards and kill all the momentum we had on this drive".  Sure enough... 

Nichols was the hot hand. Stop trying to be so damn cute.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Super Duper Negatron

[17to85]

1 hour ago, Mr Dee said:

You guys can call it a bad play call if you want..you're entitled...because it didn't work.  I see it no different than a run up the middle that gets stuffed, or a long fade in the end zone that's too far, or for that matter, any play that didn't work. You're putting forward the belief that any other play call had a better chance of working. And that's a possibility, but not a guarantee. The very next play showed what could happen...a sack.

That play was specifically designed for that spot on the field, and it was called because the same play worked perfectly last year when it was tried. Was it still a bad call then?

To me, it was simply a call that didn't work, nothing more, nothing less.

The very next play was 2nd and long though, I mean you hand off to Harris what are the odds he loses yards? So if he gets stuffed at the LOS you're still 2nd and goal from what was it? the 6? Much more reasonable play there. Call that play on 2nd down I am a lot more forgiving of it, but on first down it's just stupid. 

[Mr Dee]

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

The very next play was 2nd and long though, I mean you hand off to Harris what are the odds he loses yards? So if he gets stuffed at the LOS you're still 2nd and goal from what was it? the 6? Much more reasonable play there. Call that play on 2nd down I am a lot more forgiving of it, but on first down it's just stupid. 

2nd and long? It was the same distance - 6 yards. And if Harris  is stopped or stuffed, does that change the fact that Nichols gets sacked on the next play as before?  So, how can that be more reasonable if the first play doesn't work? If any play doesn't work it's still 2nd and goal from the 6, isn't it?

And calling that play on second down when they're sending a blitz? How would that have worked when more than one player touches the ball?

Stupid or brilliant? It all only matters if  any specific play gets positive results.

I'm not arguing that the play should have been called, I'm just saying any 1st play could have been stopped and the results would have been the same....from beyond the 6 yard line after the sack. 3rd down FG.

I remember damned well when posters would ream LaPo for a running play when it was obviously a running play....and it didn't work. What was said again? Oh yeah too conservative...

Edited August 21, 2017 by Mr Dee

[JuranBoldenRules]

4 hours ago, SPuDS said:

hes paid to do what the coaches and OC train him to do.. you  really don't think he had any practice with that play prior to game time?    its not like it hasn't worked in the past..

 

 

and like mentioned, you ALL crow about how conservative he is and how he never goes for it.. he does JUST THAT and guess what, people complain! lol. 

the ironing is so delicious.

The likelihood of a turnover and scoring 0 points goes up hugely when you run those plays and many parts of it could have went wrong.  QBs who are QBs make bad decisions, let alone guys who aren't QBs.

Even Nichols piece of the play has to be almost perfect to ensure it's not an illegal formation, he can't make any approach out of shotgun towards the centre.

It's a crazy call when you are just shredding the defence.  No reason to increase the degree of difficulty.

[17to85]

1 hour ago, Mr Dee said:

2nd and long? It was the same distance - 6 yards.

No it wasn't. Adams got tackled well back of the line of scrimmage and the next play was second and goal from the fifteen yard line or something like that.

[Mr Dee]

58 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

No it wasn't. Adams got tackled well back of the line of scrimmage and the next play was second and goal from the fifteen yard line or something like that.

Yes, you're right, I was soo confused. I was heading down the direction that the same thing would have happened anyways, but that's only conjecture. As is this whole line of what ifs. 

Tricky or not, we had a play that failed. Damn eh? 1st time this year too (TIC)

So, the trick didn't work, running other scenarios by you didn't work, so now I'll pass, and see if that works.

How about that?

[Guest J5V]

6 hours ago, Mike said:

Except the intent of the play is not to put Nichols in a one on one jump ball situation. Nichols can have as much position as he wants, he's not a receiver. 

The intent of the play is that the D loses track of Nichols and he's wide open in the end zone. The fact that the half picked up on it means the play was pretty much dead in the water, unless you suddenly think Adams and Nichols switched bodies and Nichols is a red zone threat and Adams can put touch on the ball like a QB. 

Yes and Adams was likely instructed to eat the ball or throw it away under such a circumstance. Play was "dead in the water".