Playcalling or execution? Play-by-play breakdown of offence vs. Mtl.

[TrueBlue4ever]

So, as usual, I take a couple of days off from the board after a game especially after a loss, ESPECIALLY after THIS loss, to get away from the insanity of the emotion right after a game, but I also read through the angry posts after my cooling off period and caught the usual flavour. Many blame Hall and his bend don't break style (which has held up in 9 wins BTW - and that last drive was more a busted coverage for a 60 yard gain than a soft zone - that WAS break, not bend, on that play at least), many blame LaPo. Some ID breakdowns in the secondary, some point to the missed kicks, one or two spread out the blame to all parties. A couple point to blown calls by the ref, especially the missed helmet swing which should have had Adams Jr. ejected by the letter of the rule. A couple looked at Streveler and his ill-timed INT, but many more seemed to be willing to give him a pass (not surprisingly, the loudest of those were the same people who have been dumping on Nichols all season and pumping Strev's tires - or blowing something else of his, since the start of the year). It is almost comical the level of self-flaggellation this fan board goes through after a defeat like this, hope there weren't too many sprained ankles from yet again hopping off the bandwagon. However, one thing in particular that has been a repeated theme is the "we go conservative on offence, why change what worked. LaPo tries to out-think himself and be a genius, he is too predictable and lousy, etc. etc."

Therefore, rather than knee-jerk reacting to jump on the Lapo-bashing train or try too hard to defend him against the chattering noise without any substantive backing, I looked at the offensive play-calling from the game to get a feel at least for what was being called and if it did change, or if the critics are merely venting and seeing what they want to see to defend their inherent biases. We know Harris' carries by quarter were 5, 3, 2 and 3, and Streveler was 5, 3,1 and 3 (and 2 of those 3 in the 4th were actually both sacks), but was the reduction in running a play-calling matter or simply the fact that they ran less offensive plays overall due to Montreal being on the field longer? The raw data shows that the Bombers ran 19, 11, 12, and 12 offensive plays (counting field goals and attempts but not punts) by quarter, and Montreal ran 7, 17, 14 and 24.

Anyway, here is what the numbers say. Make your own analysis of it to defend your entrenched points of view (I'm sure a few will), but I guess in the end what I see is that the same "inept, useless (fill in your vitriol-filled adjective here) LaPo playcalling" that cost us the game in the 4th is the same that got us the big lead in the first place. Maybe Montreal made adjustments, maybe the INT was a big momentum switch, maybe the issue isn't the coordinators but the players who blew assignements or caved when the pressure got too high for them. Maybe, maybe not.

Bombers ran 8 pass plays, 5 QB runs, and 6 RB runs in the first quarter. It was 4-3-3 in the 2nd (and a kneel down), 7-1-3 in the 3rd (and a FG), and 5-3-3 in the 4th (and a FG miss), so aside from the lack of QB runs in the 3rd, the percentage of type of play call seemed fairly consistent. To be fair, I have not re-watched the video to see how the running plays were designed to see if the style of run (up the gut, sweep, pitch, etc.) changed, but as for the passes, this is what I can say:

I looked at each pass from the point of catch (where the ball was thrown/caught relative to the line of scrimmage), the YAC yardage, and the TOTAL yards worked for (in 6 instances the pass was caught behind the line of scrimmage so the actual gain was less than the total yards worked for)

 

1st quarter:

-4 POC, 10 YAC, 14 YWF (10 yard catch)

-5 POC, 3 YAC, 8 YWF (3 yard catch)

11 POC, 1 YAC, 12 YWF (12 yard catch)

11 POC, 0 YAC, 11 YWF (11 yard catch)

5 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (5 yard incomplete pass)

2 POC, 10 YAC, 12 YWF (12 yard catch)

7 POC, 0 YAC, 7 YWF (7 yard catch)

13 POC, 0 YAC, 13 YWF (13 yard TD catch)

 

2nd quarter:

-2 POC, 11 YAC, 13 YWF (11 yard catch)

7 POC, 2 YAC, 9 YWF (9 yard catch)

35 POC, 39 YAC, 74 YWF (74 yard catch)

10 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (10 yard pass intercepted)

 

3rd quarter:

-4 POC, 6 YAC, 10 YWF (6 yard catch)

6 POC, 4 YAC, 10 YWF (10 yard catch)

(-) POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (pass incomplete out of bounds)

15 POC, 4 YAC, 19 YWF (19 yard catch)

8 POC, 6 YAC, 14 YWF (14 yard catch)

-2 POC, 0 YAC, 2 YWF (0 yard catch)

-6 POC, 6 YAC, 12 YWF (6 yard catch)

 

4th quarter:

8 POC, 7 YAC, 15 YWF (15 yard catch)

8 POC, 0 YAC, 7 YWF (8 yard catch)

6 POC, 4 YAC, 10 YWF (10 yard catch)

4 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (4 yard catch)

13 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (pass interference called)

 

So a quick glance at the numbers does not suggest that our game plan changed significantly in terms of run/pass play selection frequency (and how often do we hear "why get conservative and play kill the clock with the run? Throw it!" when the run gets stuffed, and then "why throw it when the run has been going so well? Chew up yards on the ground and kill the clock, don't overthink things!" when we try not to play conservative run - people will play both sides of the argument so long as it suits their "LaPo sucks" agenda at the time in question) or pass game startegy. It certainly suggests that the short pass and check down is used a lot and that we don't stretch the defence, save for Adams bomb to Harris. Funny that Nichols gets roasted for that style of "game management" but nary a peep about strong-armed Streveler not throwing further downfield than 15 yards once in this game. And hey, this short pass game plan worked gangbusters in the first half when we rolled up the points. Also (as a pre-emptive strike for those who will argue we need to anticipate the Montreal halftime adjustment and NOT stick with what was working because they will catch on), the last time we were rolling with the short pass and then shook things up against BC by inserting Streveler for Nichols, we had a quick turnover and lost the lead by NOT staying the course, so damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So is it the coaches "changing things" that cause our offence to bog down, or the players losing focus, or blown assignments? I won't make a definitive statement, but you can likely guess from this post that I am not about to crucify the coaches alone for this loss. Make what you will of the numbers, if anyone can use these stats to show me how the game plan suddenly flipped from ultra aggressive to ultra conservative based on these numbers, please feel free to break it down for me. Just back it up with what is actually happening, not just what you feel is happening to match the narrative you have already created in your head to justify your bias.

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by TrueBlue4ever

[Noeller]

Gonna need a TL/DR for this....

[17to85]

 I'm sorry but analysis without looking at the types of plays called is just a waste of time. No one ever said they stopped throwing passes, you have missed the entire point. 

[17to85]

Just now, Noeller said:

Gonna need a TL/DR for this....

I read it, don't waste your time, it's long on words short on an actual point.

[Noeller]

Just now, 17to85 said:

I read it, don't waste your time, it's long on words short on an actual point.

I expected about as much...

[Floyd]

Quick glance and it looks like Lapo abandoned hitches and screens for hooks in the 4th - which is basically everyone’s point

these numbers really do show - if anything - that Lapo turtles back to his run up the gut and throw 6 yard hooks

[Deiter Fan]

53 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Gonna need a TL/DR for this....

Paraphrasing...

We're  stupid for for feeling emotional after the loss.

Streveler sucks. We would have won if Nichols was in.

We're stupid for having opinions.

Condescension.

Derision.

Self righteousness.

A little extra condescension for good measure.

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Deiter Fan

[Tracker]

As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics." They have also been referred to as mathematical self-pleasuring.

[17to85]

Statistics are ever only as useful as the person interpreting them.

[Tracker]

A good recap of the game on 3downnation: https://3downnation.com/2019/09/21/bombers-collapse-out-east-again-10-other-thoughts/

[NorthernSkunk]

Again it was a great day in our house...., the game started out very entertaining, and very promising for the future.  Then we lost.  Which actually was entertainment in a twisted way...... the future looks good.   Looking forward to see if Bomber management/coaches ever do any of the things we need that are mentioned on here by people ......

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, NorthernSkunk said:

Again it was a great day in our house...., the game started out very entertaining, and very promising for the future.  Then we lost.  Which actually was entertainment in a twisted way...... the future looks good.   Looking forward to see if Bomber management/coaches ever do any of the things we need that are mentioned on here by people ......

It was rightly a great day. You, your lady and family have won more than the Grey Cup Stanley Cup and Superbowl combined.

[ALuCsRED]

So, you're saying that we didn't make any adjustments at halftime and ran similar plays in the 2nd half?

54 offensive plays called during the game.  How many were the same play called more than once?  Do we only have a 20 play playbook?

 

 

[DR. CFL]

That analysis illustrates that they don’t go down field enough to force the defence to back off and create openings especially in the intermediate area.

[17to85]

Honestly I think it was brought up in the chat room during the game that the only deep shot they took was from Adams. Very strange to not let the qb try and deep passes. 

[blue_gold_84]

It isn't an either or type of scenario, IMO. The coaches and the players both share the blame in Saturday's collapse. 

From what I can tell, that seems to be the consensus here and elsewhere within the fanbase. The coaches failed. The players failed.

[Goalie]

3 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

It isn't an either or type of scenario, IMO. The coaches and the players both share the blame in Saturday's collapse. 

From what I can tell, that seems to be the consensus here and elsewhere within the fanbase. The coaches failed. The players failed.

Bingo

[trueBlue83]

11 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Honestly I think it was brought up in the chat room during the game that the only deep shot they took was from Adams. Very strange to not let the qb try and deep passes. 

pretty easy to plan your defensive scheme when you know the ball isn't going to get thrown over 10 yards.   You would think that THIS WOULD be the time to pull out a changeup and toss one deep when they aren't expecting it.... LaPo needs to really mix up the playbook moving ahead, or we're going to stall every second half.  The receipt for success against us should now be well known to the rest of the league!

[Eternal optimist]

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

It isn't an either or type of scenario, IMO. The coaches and the players both share the blame in Saturday's collapse. 

From what I can tell, that seems to be the consensus here and elsewhere within the fanbase. The coaches failed. The players failed.

So much this, I've yet to see an OC throw a pick 6, or a defensive co-ordinator bust a coverage. At the same time though, even with atrocious play-calling, a comeback of that nature can only be facilitated by a combination of both bad play calling and poor execution.

It's like writing an exam - if you have a bad teacher for the course (i.e. coordinator), it can hold you back a bit, but realistically it's the student (player) that determines whether they pass or fail (based on effort and execution they put into the learning the material).

[Dr Zaius]

I appreciated the read and effort and it's nice to see a breakdown!

The only problem with that was it DOES matter what plays were called, and without it, the whole point is moot.

The problem with LaPo is it's always: first and ten, hand off up the middle. Draw or screen, MAYBE some stupid 4 yard curl. Punt.

Yeah the frequency is the same, but at that point in the game it's so much more predictable due to the circumstance.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Dr Zaius

[Eternal optimist]

Alright, I'll bite. I think it's only fair to compare the Bombers offensive play-calling in the fourth to that of their peers, both of the other top teams also had sizeable leads at some point (HAM, CAL) and had opponents that surged a comeback, though for EDM and TOR, the comeback fell short:

Calgary 4th Q Plays

7 POC, 5 YAC, 12 YWF
Incomplete pass (33 yards)
10 POC, 1 YAC, 11 YWF
Incomplete pass (10 yards)
13 POC, 0 YAC, 13 YWF
Incomplete pass (29 yards)
16 POC, 5 YAC, 21 YWF
0 POC, 7 YAC, 7 YWF
Incomplete pass (9 yards)
Field goal
6 POC, 0 YAC, 6 YWF
Rush for 2
Punt
9 POC, 4 YAC, 13 YWF
Rush for 2
10 POC, 8 YAC, 18 YWF
QB Kneel
Incomplete pass

Pass plays 20+ yards: 2 (attempted and successful based on YOC, bolded above)

HAM 4th Q plays

Rush for -3
Incomplete pass (24 yards)
Punt
13 YOC, 1 YAC, 14 YWF
6 YOC, 6 YAC, 12 YWF
0 YOC, 1 YAC, 1 YWF
Incomplete pass (24 yards)
Field goal
Incomplete pass (5 yards)
0 YOC, 9 YAC, 9 YWF
Rush for 3
0 YOC, 8 YAC, 8 YWF
Rush for 0
Punt
Rush for 5
0 YOC, 2 YAC, 2 YWF
Punt

26 YOC, 0 YAC, 26 YWF
Rush for 5
Rush for 2
Rush for 9
Field goal
Pass plays 20+ yards: 2 (attempted and successful based on YOC, bolded above)

CAL Play breakdown (Pass - 78%, Rush - 11%, FG / Punt - 6% each, respectively)
HAM Play breakdown (Pass - 45%, Rush - 32%, Punt - 14%, FG - 9%)
WPG play breakdown (Pass - 53%, Rush - 27%, Punt - 13%, FG - 7%)
WPG Pass plays 20+ yards: 0

I think the biggest difference isn't so much the fact the Bombers ran the ball so much (as shown, HAM actually ran the ball even more in the 4th), it's the fact the Bombers didn't even attempt any 20+ passes - sometimes it's more important for the opposing D to think you might take a deep shot - you have to at least have them concerned about it, and not think you've abandoned it.

Which, in my opinion is what happened, Bombers started running routes just enough for (or classic Lapo, just short) of 1st downs, MTL DBs creeped up, Bombers never even made them think twice with a deep ball attempt, and MTL got the 2 and outs quickly and efficiently that were needed to score 24 points unanswered. Of course, home run balls all day isn't the answer either - it's a balancing act, but you have to at least take some shots otherwise the opposing D will pick up on that.
 

 

[Old Bomber Fan]

Interesting article in the FP by Doug Brown this morning. Couldn't agree more with his comments and in fact many comments on this forum are repeated in his article. It starts at the top and filters down to the players. If the top is complacent then that filters down to the players and results in a lack of execution and urgency. So well said

[Deiter Fan]

1 hour ago, Old Bomber Fan said:

It starts at the top and filters down to the players. If the top is complacent then that filters down to the players and results in a lack of execution and urgency. So well said

MOS said something last night that may lend some credence to the top-down notion

Paraphrasing...

The guys came in at half-time all fired up over the lead talking about how they were going to run it up in the second half and I told them to calm down and re-focus...which is what good coaches are supposed to do, right? Maybe that was the wrong thing to do. Maybe I should have let them feed off their bravado.

Players feed off momentum and he wanted them to forget about all the momentum they built up in the first half and go out as if it was zero-zero.
 

 

[Noeller]

there's absolutely something to the "keep an even keel" mentality, too....never too high, never too low...

[do or die]

There is something about simply keeping intensity and focus, on the job at hand.  

Edited September 24, 2019 by do or die