Who said the run is not a problem?

[Goalie]

Crazy stat here, time of possession, winnipeg 30:38 SASK 29:22

 

So far all that running SASK did, The bombers still had the ball longer, not by much but they did.

 

Rushing, riders had a 6.3 yard average.. Bombers had a 7.2 yard average  and 18 less carries, Perhaps a game where we didn't run enough ourselves actually

 

First downs. Winnipeg 23. SASK 14

 

Grigsby had just 8 carries for 66 yards, over an 8 yard average, We didn't run the ball enough. Had 3 catches for 32 yards. Total = 11 touches for 98 yards. We definitely didn't use Grigsby enough this game

 

Can talk about our RUN D all you want but... On Offense, we didn't run the ball enough. Hell, Grigsby didn't get enough touches, 11 friggin touches for the guy and he averages basically 9 yards a touch and we only use him 11 times? Brutal. 

[James]

What was the end result goalie? All those stats are just little sub plots to help us with the end result, which was a loss

If we didn't have such a *****, schematically bad defence and could stop the run as well as the pass... We would have crushed them.

[JuranBoldenRules]

What was the end result goalie? All those stats are just little sub plots to help us with the end result, which was a loss

If we didn't have such a *****, schematically bad defence and could stop the run as well as the pass... We would have crushed them.

You are completely wrong. Look at where the Riders points came from in both games in Winnipeg. Offence didn't put up enough points in the first game and gave up 2 direct TDs, special teams did the same yesterday. If the O and ST don't hand the Riders points, both games in Winnipeg are easy Bomber wins even with 200 rushing yards against.

[DR. CFL]

If you can't manage all three facets of the game, stop taking senseless penalties and having a negative turnover ratio you will ultimately lose more times then you win. One tsn graphic illustrated the win- loss ratio of the Bombers based on the success of big plays. A difficult way to expect to have continued success.

[mfranc]

 

 

 

We gave up 200 yds rushing. Kind of cancels out the nice passing stats. 

but only one TD drive given up. D and O weren't the reasons this game was a loss, it's all on the special teams gaffes and the penalties. 

 

This is how Stamps fans are talking about their defense giving up big plays to Edmonton last night. Hey, we gave up some big plays. But so what we still won. What's Calgary best known for? The Big Choke in the playoffs. I think we'll see them give up too many big plays on defense  in the Western Final & lose again. MOS can't be happy with 200 yds rushing on the ground. If he is, well he's living in a dream world. 

 

 

Is Chamblin thrilled with giving up 360 yards passing?

 

Teams play differently with leads.  Chamblin is happy with the win but concerned with Durant I'd say.

[mfranc]

 

What was the end result goalie? All those stats are just little sub plots to help us with the end result, which was a loss

If we didn't have such a *****, schematically bad defence and could stop the run as well as the pass... We would have crushed them.

You are completely wrong. Look at where the Riders points came from in both games in Winnipeg. Offence didn't put up enough points in the first game and gave up 2 direct TDs, special teams did the same yesterday. If the O and ST don't hand the Riders points, both games in Winnipeg are easy Bomber wins even with 200 rushing yards against.

 

When a team has a big lead their approach to the game changes.  The only number that matters is the final score.

[Super Duper Negatron]

What was the end result goalie? All those stats are just little sub plots to help us with the end result, which was a loss

If we didn't have such a *****, schematically bad defence and could stop the run as well as the pass... We would have crushed them.

I would argue the run defence is the subplot that the media has twisted into the main story. Special teams lost the game today. Offensive turnovers lost the first game. Run defence had a hand in the labour day classic, but they weren't the reason we had to comeback in the first place.

[DR. CFL]

A win is a win , loss a loss. Penalties, Turnovers, ST, O and D all contribute to success or failure. The result is the result. Continue to have lapses in any of these areas and you affect the eventual outcome.

[Logan007]

From what I'm seeing:

 

- Our run D is crap.  Admit it.  If we had a better run D, our offense would have spent more time on the field.  If our run D was better, would that have made a difference in the game?  Possibly, if offense had more time on the field, we'd have been able to take more cracks trying to get it in the end zone.

- ST is just awful except for Stoudemire.  He's the shinning light.  The big question I have is...why wasn't he out there on every punt and kick return?  Sorry I may have missed something like him getting hurt.  I was at a party with people who wouldn't shut up while I was watching the game, so I missed the commentary.

- Reffing.  Specifically one call that could have changed the game for us.  The huge missed holding call on the punt return.  He might have taken him down if it wasn't for that sloppy missed call, and we could have won the game.

- Willy.  I love him, and I know he'll be great, but he's making some rookie mistakes.  Whether that was MB that told him to huck it down field in the second last series or if that was just him that wanted to show boat, I don't know.  But scoring a td AND managing the clock should have been the primary goals at that point.

- Penalties...a ridiculous amount of penalties.  Our guys need to reign it in.  That was over 100 yards worth of penalties.  This is just unacceptable and needs to be cleaned up.

 

Just my .02 cents.

[bearpants]

From what I'm seeing:

 

- Our run D is crap.  Admit it.  If we had a better run D, our offense would have spent more time on the field.  If our run D was better, would that have made a difference in the game?  Possibly, if offense had more time on the field, we'd have been able to take more cracks trying to get it in the end zone.

- ST is just awful except for Stoudemire.  He's the shinning light.  The big question I have is...why wasn't he out there on every punt and kick return?  Sorry I may have missed something like him getting hurt.  I was at a party with people who wouldn't shut up while I was watching the game, so I missed the commentary.

- Reffing.  Specifically one call that could have changed the game for us.  The huge missed holding call on the punt return.  He might have taken him down if it wasn't for that sloppy missed call, and we could have won the game.

- Willy.  I love him, and I know he'll be great, but he's making some rookie mistakes.  Whether that was MB that told him to huck it down field in the second last series or if that was just him that wanted to show boat, I don't know.  But scoring a td AND managing the clock should have been the primary goals at that point.

- Penalties...a ridiculous amount of penalties.  Our guys need to reign it in.  That was over 100 yards worth of penalties.  This is just unacceptable and needs to be cleaned up.

 

Just my .02 cents.

 

Sounds like you're on the ball for most of these... still find it pretty incredible that the Riders o-line didn't have one single holding call for two consecutive games....

[17to85]

 

 

What was the end result goalie? All those stats are just little sub plots to help us with the end result, which was a loss

If we didn't have such a *****, schematically bad defence and could stop the run as well as the pass... We would have crushed them.

You are completely wrong. Look at where the Riders points came from in both games in Winnipeg. Offence didn't put up enough points in the first game and gave up 2 direct TDs, special teams did the same yesterday. If the O and ST don't hand the Riders points, both games in Winnipeg are easy Bomber wins even with 200 rushing yards against.

 

When a team has a big lead their approach to the game changes.  The only number that matters is the final score.

 

But that big lead didn't come from the Riders offense, it came from special teams.... The Bombers won the battle on offense and defense yesterday, they just lost the special teams battle in a very lopsided manner. A win is a win, but when dissecting why a loss was a loss you can delve deeper into it than simply the final score. Let me ask you this, as a Rider fan were you pleased with the way the Riders offense played? 

[Doublezero]

When I read the title of this thread I thought it referred to the Blue Bombers pathetic run game, which averages 77.9 yards per game and ranks 8th, just ahead of Redblacks in futility. Problem is Grigsby who is too slow hitting the gaps and who is always stopped dead on first contact. Of course we also sit 8th (just ahead of Redblacks) in stopping the run as other teams run for least 125 yards against us, each game. But as O'Shea and others have pointed out our D hasn't given up that many points against. The real problem is our pathetic offensive production. No one is afraid of our run game which leaves us one-dimensional and too easy to solve, especially with a rook QB. 

[mfranc]

 

 

 

What was the end result goalie? All those stats are just little sub plots to help us with the end result, which was a loss

If we didn't have such a *****, schematically bad defence and could stop the run as well as the pass... We would have crushed them.

You are completely wrong. Look at where the Riders points came from in both games in Winnipeg. Offence didn't put up enough points in the first game and gave up 2 direct TDs, special teams did the same yesterday. If the O and ST don't hand the Riders points, both games in Winnipeg are easy Bomber wins even with 200 rushing yards against.

 

When a team has a big lead their approach to the game changes.  The only number that matters is the final score.

 

But that big lead didn't come from the Riders offense, it came from special teams.... The Bombers won the battle on offense and defense yesterday, they just lost the special teams battle in a very lopsided manner. A win is a win, but when dissecting why a loss was a loss you can delve deeper into it than simply the final score. Let me ask you this, as a Rider fan were you pleased with the way the Riders offense played? 

 

Yes.  Why?  Because they controlled the game on the ground and protected the lead in the second half even while losing their starting QB (who was 8 for 9 passing at that point). 

[Super Duper Negatron]

When I read the title of this thread I thought it referred to the Blue Bombers pathetic run game, which averages 77.9 yards per game and ranks 8th, just ahead of Redblacks in futility. Problem is Grigsby who is too slow hitting the gaps and who is always stopped dead on first contact. Of course we also sit 8th (just ahead of Redblacks) in stopping the run as other teams run for least 125 yards against us, each game. But as O'Shea and others have pointed out our D hasn't given up that many points against. The real problem is our pathetic offensive production. No one is afraid of our run game which leaves us one-dimensional and too easy to solve, especially with a rook QB. 

 

I actually think Grigsby has been better the last couple of games. Seems to be running harder inside than earlier in the season.

[Doublezero]

Grigsby has been better last couple of games. But that doesn't mean he's good.

[Maudie fingerjammer]

Our inability to stop the run is not why we are losing, agreed. However it does keep our offense on the sidelines far too long. More two and outs please. It greatly impacts our field position. Starting deep in your own end all the time is not an offensive advantage. Yes this years team handles it better than last years totally inept excuse for a team.

It is not a problem that can be addressed completely this year. But you can bet the off season recruiting will reflect this inadequacy. No they will never admit it is a problem. That would focus attention on the schemes, yhe DC and the people recruited to implement the system. Etch will be told to go more conventional. If he doesn't agree I suspect he will be replaced. I also think this years approach is probably a stop gap one anyway. It was a quick fix.

Next year it will be easier to recruit both coaches and players. We will not be viewed as the goog ship lollypop but an up and coming force to be reconed with. People want to play for a winner. Recruiting for the offensive line thru FA will shore up the line, plus the draft. A few run stopping beasts can be found thru conventional means.

[17to85]

 

 

 

 

What was the end result goalie? All those stats are just little sub plots to help us with the end result, which was a loss

If we didn't have such a *****, schematically bad defence and could stop the run as well as the pass... We would have crushed them.

You are completely wrong. Look at where the Riders points came from in both games in Winnipeg. Offence didn't put up enough points in the first game and gave up 2 direct TDs, special teams did the same yesterday. If the O and ST don't hand the Riders points, both games in Winnipeg are easy Bomber wins even with 200 rushing yards against.

 

When a team has a big lead their approach to the game changes.  The only number that matters is the final score.

 

But that big lead didn't come from the Riders offense, it came from special teams.... The Bombers won the battle on offense and defense yesterday, they just lost the special teams battle in a very lopsided manner. A win is a win, but when dissecting why a loss was a loss you can delve deeper into it than simply the final score. Let me ask you this, as a Rider fan were you pleased with the way the Riders offense played? 

 

Yes.  Why?  Because they controlled the game on the ground and protected the lead in the second half even while losing their starting QB (who was 8 for 9 passing at that point). 

 

but they didn't protect the lead... the lead kept shrinking on them in the 2nd half and the only reason they had the lead to start with was because of the special teams plays... I'll point it out again, the Riders offense twice had chances to make first downs late to take time off the clock and twice they failed to do so giving the Bombers chances to win the game again. The Riders defense did more to keep the lead than the offense did. You are looking at the offense from the standpoint of "we won so it all worked out" which is flawed. You have to ignore the final score to properly look at how things went. 

[Fatty Liver]

 

 

 

 

 

What was the end result goalie? All those stats are just little sub plots to help us with the end result, which was a loss

If we didn't have such a *****, schematically bad defence and could stop the run as well as the pass... We would have crushed them.

You are completely wrong. Look at where the Riders points came from in both games in Winnipeg. Offence didn't put up enough points in the first game and gave up 2 direct TDs, special teams did the same yesterday. If the O and ST don't hand the Riders points, both games in Winnipeg are easy Bomber wins even with 200 rushing yards against.

 

When a team has a big lead their approach to the game changes.  The only number that matters is the final score.

 

But that big lead didn't come from the Riders offense, it came from special teams.... The Bombers won the battle on offense and defense yesterday, they just lost the special teams battle in a very lopsided manner. A win is a win, but when dissecting why a loss was a loss you can delve deeper into it than simply the final score. Let me ask you this, as a Rider fan were you pleased with the way the Riders offense played? 

 

Yes.  Why?  Because they controlled the game on the ground and protected the lead in the second half even while losing their starting QB (who was 8 for 9 passing at that point). 

 

but they didn't protect the lead... the lead kept shrinking on them in the 2nd half and the only reason they had the lead to start with was because of the special teams plays... I'll point it out again, the Riders offense twice had chances to make first downs late to take time off the clock and twice they failed to do so giving the Bombers chances to win the game again. The Riders defense did more to keep the lead than the offense did. You are looking at the offense from the standpoint of "we won so it all worked out" which is flawed. You have to ignore the final score to properly look at how things went. 

 

 

The alarm bells will only ring for the RR fanbase when Calgary punts them by a large margin.  Of course they will blame it all on DD's injury.

[TrueBlue]

If the Riders' stats were reversed (196 yards passing, 107 yards rushing), maybe this thread isn't even started. 

[mbrg]

If the Riders' stats were reversed (196 yards passing, 107 yards rushing), maybe this thread isn't even started. 

 

Seems like there's some people who think you get a point for every yard of rushing.  In their minds Saskatchewan scored 196 points yesterday.  If football was really scored that way I'd be crazy depressed too.

 

The reason OShea says it isn't a problem with the exception of about 3 plays, the defence succeeded in doing what it was trying to do.  Saskatchewan doesn't get bonus points for first downs or rushing yards.  They got in the end zone once.  In makeable field goal range twice.  This is what the defence is.  It held the defending Grey Cup champs to 107 yards passing and created multiple turnovers.  If the opposition getting lots of yards rushing and lots of first downs and not being able to turn those things into points makes you angry, you're not going enjoy playing Calgary either.  Their Oline will also push our Dline aside.

[Goalie]

 

If the Riders' stats were reversed (196 yards passing, 107 yards rushing), maybe this thread isn't even started. 

 

Seems like there's some people who think you get a point for every yard of rushing.  In their minds Saskatchewan scored 196 points yesterday.  If football was really scored that way I'd be crazy depressed too.

 

The reason OShea says it isn't a problem with the exception of about 3 plays, the defence succeeded in doing what it was trying to do.  Saskatchewan doesn't get bonus points for first downs or rushing yards.  They got in the end zone once.  In makeable field goal range twice.  This is what the defence is.  It held the defending Grey Cup champs to 107 yards passing and created multiple turnovers.  If the opposition getting lots of yards rushing and lots of first downs and not being able to turn those things into points makes you angry, you're not going enjoy playing Calgary either.  Their Oline will also push our Dline aside.

 

I agree but just want to say, we had more first downs, almost double really well not almost but close to almost and about a minute more in time of possession. 

[DR. CFL]

I guess the next big test is Cornish and the Stamps.

[Brandon]

I guess the next big test is Cornish and the Stamps.

 

That is the ultimate test... best RB and best o line in the league 

[Fatty Liver]

 

I guess the next big test is Cornish and the Stamps.

 

That is the ultimate test... best RB and best o line in the league 

 

 

I say the Bombers treat those games as tryout camps and don't send any of their valuable assets which could be be injured in the beating.  Hope I'm wrong.

[mfranc]

 

 

 

 

 

 

What was the end result goalie? All those stats are just little sub plots to help us with the end result, which was a loss

If we didn't have such a *****, schematically bad defence and could stop the run as well as the pass... We would have crushed them.

You are completely wrong. Look at where the Riders points came from in both games in Winnipeg. Offence didn't put up enough points in the first game and gave up 2 direct TDs, special teams did the same yesterday. If the O and ST don't hand the Riders points, both games in Winnipeg are easy Bomber wins even with 200 rushing yards against.

 

When a team has a big lead their approach to the game changes.  The only number that matters is the final score.

 

But that big lead didn't come from the Riders offense, it came from special teams.... The Bombers won the battle on offense and defense yesterday, they just lost the special teams battle in a very lopsided manner. A win is a win, but when dissecting why a loss was a loss you can delve deeper into it than simply the final score. Let me ask you this, as a Rider fan were you pleased with the way the Riders offense played? 

 

Yes.  Why?  Because they controlled the game on the ground and protected the lead in the second half even while losing their starting QB (who was 8 for 9 passing at that point). 

 

but they didn't protect the lead... the lead kept shrinking on them in the 2nd half and the only reason they had the lead to start with was because of the special teams plays... I'll point it out again, the Riders offense twice had chances to make first downs late to take time off the clock and twice they failed to do so giving the Bombers chances to win the game again. The Riders defense did more to keep the lead than the offense did. You are looking at the offense from the standpoint of "we won so it all worked out" which is flawed. You have to ignore the final score to properly look at how things went. 

 

 

The alarm bells will only ring for the RR fanbase when Calgary punts them by a large margin.  Of course they will blame it all on DD's injury.

 

Okay.  I find it rather amusing that the Bombers lose all three games, get run over in all three games and you still want to find fault with the team that beat the Bombers.  When the Rider offence needed to step up in the LDC they did it.  The last game?  They did an excellent job of controlling the tempo and winning the game after their starting QB went down.

 

The Stamps?  I recall the Riders losing 2 out of 3 to them last year and then kicking their arse in their own house on the way to a Grey Cup romp.  Regular season is just an audition.

 

Sunseri will do fine (he's looked rather good in limited time so with a week of reps he'll be ready).

 

You guy can focus on the Lions now.  For the record, I think the Bombers can mop the floor with them.

 

Cheers.